Cargando…

Polydioxanone implants: A systematic review on safety and performance in patients

BACKGROUND: Medical devices made of polydioxanone (a synthetic biodegradable polymer) have been available since the early 1980s. However, no review regarding their performance and safety has been published. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review intends to review and assess commercially available polydio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martins, Joana A, Lach, Antonina A, Morris, Hayley L, Carr, Andrew J, Mouthuy, Pierre-Alexis
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31771403
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885328219888841
_version_ 1783501638739165184
author Martins, Joana A
Lach, Antonina A
Morris, Hayley L
Carr, Andrew J
Mouthuy, Pierre-Alexis
author_facet Martins, Joana A
Lach, Antonina A
Morris, Hayley L
Carr, Andrew J
Mouthuy, Pierre-Alexis
author_sort Martins, Joana A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Medical devices made of polydioxanone (a synthetic biodegradable polymer) have been available since the early 1980s. However, no review regarding their performance and safety has been published. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review intends to review and assess commercially available polydioxanone implants and their safety and performance in patients. METHODS: We searched for approved polydioxanone implants in several Food and Drug Administration databases. Then, we performed a literature search for publications and clinical trials where polydioxanone devices were implanted in patients. This search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and other databases. Safety and performance of polydioxanone implants in patients were assessed and compared with the implantation of non-polydioxanone devices, when possible, based on scoring systems developed by the authors that analyse surgical site infection rates, inflammatory reaction rates, foreign body response, postoperative pain and fever. RESULTS: Food and Drug Administration databases search revealed that 48 implants have been approved since 1981, with 1294 adverse reactions or product malfunction in the last decade and 16 recalls. A total of 49 clinical trials and 104 scientific publications were found. Polydioxanone sutures and meshes/plates had low rates of surgical site infection, inflammatory reaction, foreign body response and postoperative fever. Polydioxanone clips/staples reported high rates of surgical site infection, postoperative fever and pain, with sub-optimal clinical performance and poor safety rates. The remaining implants identified showed high levels of safety and performance. Safety scores of polydioxanone implants and non-polydioxanone alternatives are similar. Polydioxanone monofilament sutures perform better than non-polydioxanone alternatives but performance did not differ with remaining polydioxanone implant types. CONCLUSIONS: Although polydioxanone clips/staples should be implanted with caution and monitored carefully, in general, safety and performance scores of other polydioxanone implants did not differ from non-polydioxanone alternatives. This review will be a useful reference for researchers and industries developing new polydioxanone medical devices.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7044756
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70447562020-03-10 Polydioxanone implants: A systematic review on safety and performance in patients Martins, Joana A Lach, Antonina A Morris, Hayley L Carr, Andrew J Mouthuy, Pierre-Alexis J Biomater Appl Biomaterials Processing BACKGROUND: Medical devices made of polydioxanone (a synthetic biodegradable polymer) have been available since the early 1980s. However, no review regarding their performance and safety has been published. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review intends to review and assess commercially available polydioxanone implants and their safety and performance in patients. METHODS: We searched for approved polydioxanone implants in several Food and Drug Administration databases. Then, we performed a literature search for publications and clinical trials where polydioxanone devices were implanted in patients. This search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and other databases. Safety and performance of polydioxanone implants in patients were assessed and compared with the implantation of non-polydioxanone devices, when possible, based on scoring systems developed by the authors that analyse surgical site infection rates, inflammatory reaction rates, foreign body response, postoperative pain and fever. RESULTS: Food and Drug Administration databases search revealed that 48 implants have been approved since 1981, with 1294 adverse reactions or product malfunction in the last decade and 16 recalls. A total of 49 clinical trials and 104 scientific publications were found. Polydioxanone sutures and meshes/plates had low rates of surgical site infection, inflammatory reaction, foreign body response and postoperative fever. Polydioxanone clips/staples reported high rates of surgical site infection, postoperative fever and pain, with sub-optimal clinical performance and poor safety rates. The remaining implants identified showed high levels of safety and performance. Safety scores of polydioxanone implants and non-polydioxanone alternatives are similar. Polydioxanone monofilament sutures perform better than non-polydioxanone alternatives but performance did not differ with remaining polydioxanone implant types. CONCLUSIONS: Although polydioxanone clips/staples should be implanted with caution and monitored carefully, in general, safety and performance scores of other polydioxanone implants did not differ from non-polydioxanone alternatives. This review will be a useful reference for researchers and industries developing new polydioxanone medical devices. SAGE Publications 2019-11-26 2020-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7044756/ /pubmed/31771403 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885328219888841 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Biomaterials Processing
Martins, Joana A
Lach, Antonina A
Morris, Hayley L
Carr, Andrew J
Mouthuy, Pierre-Alexis
Polydioxanone implants: A systematic review on safety and performance in patients
title Polydioxanone implants: A systematic review on safety and performance in patients
title_full Polydioxanone implants: A systematic review on safety and performance in patients
title_fullStr Polydioxanone implants: A systematic review on safety and performance in patients
title_full_unstemmed Polydioxanone implants: A systematic review on safety and performance in patients
title_short Polydioxanone implants: A systematic review on safety and performance in patients
title_sort polydioxanone implants: a systematic review on safety and performance in patients
topic Biomaterials Processing
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31771403
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885328219888841
work_keys_str_mv AT martinsjoanaa polydioxanoneimplantsasystematicreviewonsafetyandperformanceinpatients
AT lachantoninaa polydioxanoneimplantsasystematicreviewonsafetyandperformanceinpatients
AT morrishayleyl polydioxanoneimplantsasystematicreviewonsafetyandperformanceinpatients
AT carrandrewj polydioxanoneimplantsasystematicreviewonsafetyandperformanceinpatients
AT mouthuypierrealexis polydioxanoneimplantsasystematicreviewonsafetyandperformanceinpatients