Advanced strategies to thwart foreign body response to implantable devices

Abstract

Mitigating the foreign body response (FBR) to implantable medical devices (IMDs) is critical for successful long‐term clinical deployment. The FBR is an inevitable immunological reaction to IMDs, resulting in inflammation and subsequent fibrotic encapsulation. Excessive fibrosis may impair IMDs function, eventually necessitating retrieval or replacement for continued therapy. Therefore, understanding the implant design parameters and their degree of influence on FBR is pivotal to effective and long lasting IMDs. This review gives an overview of FBR as well as anti‐FBR strategies. Furthermore, we highlight recent advances in biomimetic approaches to resist FBR, focusing on their characteristics and potential biomedical applications.

Comprehensive Analysis of Electrostatic Gating in Nanofluidic Systems

“…Dielectric materials with higher κ have thus been used to reduce these currents and improve gating performance . SiC, for instance, not only has a higher κ but also offers biocompatibility and chemical inertness, , which render it ideal for biomedical applications. , However, complexity in the deposition methods of SiC may lead to defects that can compromise its electrical insulation properties, especially for very thin films. , …”

Preparation and Properties of Iron Nanoparticle-Based Macroporous Scaffolds for Biodegradable Implants

“…where mt is the mass of the sintered Fe sample at the measured values of d and h, г; ρFe is the Fe bulk density (7.874 g/cm 3 ).…”

“…Implantable devices are widely used to treat musculoskeletal diseases, injuries, and traumas [ 2 ]. Traditional technologies have made it possible to develop and obtain implantable materials with greater reliability and durability, but rejection and unexpected degradation of the implants are still serious problems in surgery [ 3 ]. Bioresorbable implants are an attractive alternative to traditional permanent orthopedic implants for bone repair [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ].…”

Localization of drug biodistribution in a 3D-bioengineered subcutaneous neovascularized microenvironment

“…To address these challenges, localized immunomodulating strategies are emerging as attractive alternatives for the treatment of various conditions [ [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] ]. In this context, a wide array of technologies have been explored for cell transplantation [ 7 , 11 ], wound healing [ [12] , [13] , [14] ], cancer vaccines [ [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] ] and allergy treatment [ 19 , 20 ], among others. Nanoparticle constructs have been developed to achieve drug localization from systemic administration and reduce systemic drug exposure via active molecular targeting [ [21] , [22] , [23] ].…”

“…However, drug release from these platforms is usually exhausted within days [ 28 , 29 ], and maintenance of long-term treatment would require frequent administrations, which limits their applicability. Immunomodulatory hydrogel and implantable scaffolds have also been developed and functionalized with immunomodulating molecules [ 14 , 30 , 31 ] to control the immune system in various settings [ 32 ]. While these provide longer-acting drug release, no mechanism is available to extend release from these systems upon drug exhaustion, requiring replacement or de novo administration.…”