[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare the capsular reaction to two different coverings of silicone prosthesis through the biophysical characteristic of adherence and microscopical aspects of the inflammatory reaction and collagen formation.
Thirty two Wistar rats were used. In the dorsum of each animal a silicone elastomer with a smooth superficies and another coated with texturized silicone (Mentor) was implanted. Another one, with the same smooth superficies and other coated with silicone foam (Lifesil), making up in each side, of the dorsum, the texturized and silicone foam group respectively. The animals were split into four groups to be evaluated at 7, 14, 30 and 60 days. On the evaluation dates the implant adherence was verified witch a tensiometer and the values in kgf were obtained. The material was sent to histological analysis with hematoxilin-eosin and picrosirius colorations, to evaluate the inflammatory reaction and collagen synthesis, respectively. The obtained data were submitted to statistical treatment.
There was more adherence of the tissue to the silicone foam (P<0,001). The inflammatory reaction was more intense in the same group, but without statistical significance. The number of giant cells and granulomas were more frequent in the silicone foam group. There was statistical significance at the 60 days for granulomas (P<0,028) and for all subgroups about number of giant cells (P< 0,012 to P<0,036). The thickness of the capsule in the silicone foam group was bigger, with statistical significance at seven days (P<0,028) and 60 days (P<0,012). The collagen deposition showed no difference in statistical analysis.
The capsular reaction to the silicone foam showed stronger adherence, bigger thickness and had more number of granulomas and giant cells. No difference was observed in the intensity of inflammatory reaction in relation to type I and III collagen, when compared to the texturized cover.
Acta cirurgica brasileira / Sociedade Brasileira para Desenvolvimento Pesquisa em Cirurgia 24(5):367-76. · 0.48 Impact Factor