Histologic analysis of the effects of three different support materials within rat middle ear

Abstract

Compared with gelfoam, both sepragel and nasopore caused less histologic alterations.

Healing of laser-induced tympanic membrane perforations in rats: No contribution of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or Gelfoam®

“…In the present study, macrophages showed the greatest recruitment in general with less B-cells and with very few T-cells engaged, indicating that the healing process differ when Gelfoam 1 /G-CSF is introduced, compared to open perforations [14]. This is in agreement with other reports where Gelfoam 1 is shown to give a more severe inflammatory reaction than other supporting materials [19]. However, infected ears are shown to regenerate faster than non-infected ones when a myringotomy is performed, probably functioning as a stimulating agent [20].…”

“…After application of Gelfoam 1 an infiltration of neutrophils, fibroblasts and an angiogenesis have been described in the surrounding tissue and matrix [19]. In the present study these results could not be supported except for in the Gelfoam 1 itself, which might be due to the short observation time.…”

“…Therefore, an alternative supportive material with less scarring and adequate biocompatibility, non-toxicity, non-immunogenicity, and mechanical properties is desired. A range of materials has been tried with sub-optimal characteristics [19,[24][25][26].…”

Oto-104

“…The safety of OTO-104, and hence its vehicle poloxamer 407, is in sharp contrast to the deleterious effects observed for several other polymers administered intratympanically. For instance, middle ears of rats treated with a gelatin matrix (Gelfoam) revealed a severe acute inflammatory response leading to prominent tissue fibrosis within 2 to 3 weeks of treatment (25). A hyaluronic acid polymer (Sepragel), although highly biocompatible, caused mild inflammatory reaction and fibrosis in the middle ear (25,26).…”

Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of ventilation tube, nasal packing, and spongostan used in ear-nose-throat surgeries

“…[5][6][7][8][9] Although we found some animal studies in literature evaluating biocompatibility of spongostan, merocell, and ventilation tube used in ear-nose-throat surgeries and investigating whether they have any negative effects on the success rate of surgery, we could not find any cytotoxicity studies carried out with cell culture and 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT test) test. [10][11][12][13] The MTT test is widely used in the assessment of drugs and chemicals, but is less well accepted in the study of toxicity of AbstrAct Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine biocompatibility of spongostan, merocell, and ventilation tube using agar diffusion and 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide tests in cell culture and to evaluate the results in terms of clinical practices. Materials and Methods: The experimental procedures involved in this study were approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of Cumhuriyet University (B.30.2.CUM.0.01.00-50/4), and the study was conducted following accepted guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals for research.…”