Morpho-Pathological Review on the Healing of Synthetic Vascular Grafts


Objective: Tissue integration of vascular grafts partially depends on the host response to injury, which immediately begins after implantation and restoration of the circulation. In an infected environment, the inflammation changes the incorporation patterns. The aim of the study was to observe the tissue incorporation process, in a normal and an infected environment. Methods: We have created an experimental model by performing subfascial implantation of four types of vascular grafts, in rats (woven Dacron®, knitted Dacron®, silver coated Dacron® and expanded Polytetrafloroethylene - ePTFE) and by infecting some of them with three different bacterial strains. We have retrieved the noninfected grafts at two and four weeks after implantation, whilst the infected ones at one, two and three weeks. Results: Detailed microscopic appearences were analysed. The control and infected groups were compared. Statistical significance was calculated for various corelations. Conclusions: The morphopathological findings showed that the ePTFE graft’s structure was best preserved. Statistical significance existed between the bacterial strain and the degree of inflammation. The silver coated Dacron® was not shown to be superior to the knitted Dacron®. The poorest incorporation was the one of the woven Dacron®.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Donovan TJ, Zimmerman B. The effect of artificial surface on blood coagulability, with special reference to polyethylene. Blood. 1949;4:1310.

  • 2. Vroman L. Methods of investigating protein interaction on artificial and natural surfaces. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1978;516:300.

  • 3. Shepard AD, Gelfand JA, Callow AD, O’Donnell TF Jr. Complement activation by synthetic vascular prostheses. J Vasc Surg. 1984;1:829.

  • 4. McCollum CN, Kester RC, Rajah SM, et al. Arterial graft maturation, the duration of thrombotic activity in Dacron aortobifemoral grafts measured by platelet and fibrinogen kinetics. Br J Surg. 1981;68:61.

  • 5. Kzhyshkowska J, Gudima A, Riabov V, et al. Macrophage responses to implants: Prospects for personalized medicine. J Leukoc Biol. 2015; Published online before print July 13, 2015 doi:10.1189/jlb.5VMR0415-166R.

  • 6. Swartbol P, Truedsson L, Parsson H, Norgren L. Tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukin-6 release from white blood cells induced by different graft materials In Vitro are affected by pentoxifylline and iloprost. J Biomed Master Res. 1997;36:400.

  • 7. Raiter A, Bechor Z, Kleiman M, et al. Angiogenic peptides improve blood flow and promote capillary growth in a diabetic and ischaemic mouse model. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40(3):381-388.

  • 8. Alobaid N, Salacinski HJ, Sales KM, et al. Nanocomposites containing bioactive peptides promote endothelialisation by circulating progenitor cells: An In Vitro evaluation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006;32(1):76-83.

  • 9. Cassar K, Bachoo P, Ford I, Greaves M, Brittenden J. Markers of coagulaton activation, endothelial stimulation and inflammation in patients with peripheral arterial disease. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2005;29(2):171-176.

  • 10. Armitage JD, Lindsey NJ, Homer-Vanniasinkam S. The role of endothelial cell reactive antibodies in peripheral arterial disease. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006;31(2):170-175.

  • 11. Daryapeyma A, Pedersen G, Laxdal E, et al. Neutrophil CD64 as a marker for postoperative infection: A pilot study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;38(1):100-103.

  • 12. Lorenz U, Schäfer T, Ohlsen K, et al. In Vivo detection of Staphylococcus aureus I n biofilm on vascular prostheses using non-invasive biophotonic imaging. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;41(1):68-75.

  • 13. Calligaro KD, Veith FJ, Schwartz ML, Dougherty MJ, DeLaurentis DA. Differences in early versus late extracavitary arterial graft infections. J Vasc Surg. 1995;22(6):680-688.

  • 14. Anderson JM. Chapter 4 Mechanisms of inflammation and infection with implanted devices. Cardiovasc Pathol. 1993;2(3):33-41.

  • 15. Zimmerli W, Sendi P. Pathogenesis of implant-associated infection: the role of the host. Sem Immunol. 2011;33(3):295-306.

  • 16. Anderson JM, Rodriguez A, Chang DT. Innate and adaptive immune responses in tissue engineering. Sem Immunol. 2008;20(2):86-100.

  • 17. Geary KJ, Tomkiewicz ZM, Harrison HN, et al. Differential effects of a gram-negative and a gram-positive infection on autogenous and prosthetic grafts. J Vasc Surg. 1990;11(2):339-347.


Journal + Issues