The impact of bacterial contamination on the host response towards fully absorbable poly-4-hydroxybutyrate and nonabsorbable polypropylene pelvic floor implants

Kim W J Verhorstert; Martijn Riool; Tess Bulten; Zeliha Guler; Leonie de Boer; Jan-Paul W R Roovers; Sebastian A J Zaat

doi:10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100268

The impact of bacterial contamination on the host response towards fully absorbable poly-4-hydroxybutyrate and nonabsorbable polypropylene pelvic floor implants

Mater Today Bio. 2022 Apr 19:15:100268. doi: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2022.100268. eCollection 2022 Jun.

Authors

Kim W J Verhorstert^{1

2}, Martijn Riool³, Tess Bulten¹, Zeliha Guler^{1

2}, Leonie de Boer³, Jan-Paul W R Roovers^{1

2}, Sebastian A J Zaat³

Affiliations

¹ Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
² Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
³ Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Abstract

Polypropylene (PP) implants for the vaginal surgical correction of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) are known for adverse events, like vaginal or visceral exposures. It is hypothesized that this is a result of a prolonged inflammatory response. One of the triggering factors of prolonged inflammation might be bacterial contamination. A possible solution might lie in an absorbable biomaterial, which provides initial mechanical support while being gradually replaced by the host tissue. With this study we aimed to compare the host response, in a subcutaneous mouse implant infection model, to delayed absorbable poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) and a latest generation PP implant. By comparing non-infected to Staphylococcus aureus infected mice, we assessed how bacterial contamination affects the host response and its role in the development of complications. Further, we included sham surgery as a control, mimicking the wound response in native tissue repair. Despite the higher surface area of the P4HB implants, the clearance of infection was similarly delayed in the presence of a P4HB or PP implant, as compared to sham. Further, the host response towards P4HB and PP was quite comparable, yet collagen deposition was significantly increased around infected P4HB implants at early time points. Adverse event rates were similar, though implant exposures were only seen in infected mice and more often with PP (11.1%) than P4HB implants (5.6%). Infected mice overall had significantly higher levels of infiltration of inflammatory cells and lower levels of vascularization and collagen deposition compared to non-infected mice. Thus, for both P4HB and PP, bacterial contamination negatively affected mesh integration by increased inflammation and an increased adverse event rate. Altogether, our results from this subcutaneous mouse implant infection study suggest that P4HB could be a promising degradable alternative to PP, warranting further research to study its potential as a new surgical solution for women with POP.

Keywords: Biomaterial-associated infection; Mesh; Pelvic floor; Pelvic organ prolapse (POP); Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB); Polypropylene (PP).