**Prevention and Management of Biological Phenomena at Biomaterial/Cell Surfaces**

456 Biomaterials – Physics and Chemistry

Markt JC, Lemon JC. Extraoral maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation at the M.D. Anderson

Tjellstrom A, Granstrom G. One-stage procedure to establish osteointegration: a zero to five

Ramires PA, Miccoli MA, Panzarini E, Dini L, Protopapa C. In vitro and in vivo

Christensen LC, Breiting VB, Aasted A, Jorgensen A, Kebuladze I. Long-Term effects

Rees TD, Ashlet FL, Delgado JP. Silicone fluid injectons for facial atrophy: a 10 years

Greenwald AS,bBoden SD, goldberg VM et al.Bone graft substitutes: Facts, fictions and

Bauer TW, Muschler GF. Bone Graft Materials. An overview of The basic scienze. Clin

Oka Y, Ikeda M. Treatment of severe osteochondritis dissecans of the elbow using osteochondral grafts from a rib. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 83-b: 738-739

Skowronski PP, An Yh. Bone graft materials in orthopaedics.MUSC Orthopaed J. 2003;6:58-66 Betz RR. Limitation of autograft and allograft: new synthetic solutions. Orthopedics

Hollinger JO, Mark DE, Goco P, et al. A comparison of four particulate bone derivatives.

Pietrzak WS, MillervSD, Kucharzyk DW, et al. Demineralized bone graftvformulations:

Davy DT.Biomechanical issues in bone transplantation. Orthop Clin North Am.1999;30:553-

Mauriello JA, McShane R, Voglino J. Use Vicryl( Polyglactina 910) mesh implant for

S. Ozturk, M Sengezer, S Isik et all. Long Term Outcomes of Ultra Thin Porous Polyethylene

S. Buelow, D Heimburg, N. Pallua. Efficacy ad Safety of Polycrylamide Hydrogel for Facial

Alessandra Leonardi, MD, Sara Buonaccorsi, MD, Giuseppina Fini, MDS, PhD. The Journal

Design, development, and a novel exemple. Proceedings of the Pittsburg

56 science and technology for the Craniomaxillofacial Surgeon.J Craniofac. Surg.

correcting enophtalmos A study of 16 patients. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1990;

Implants used for Reconstruction of Orbital Floor Defects. J Craniofac Surg. 2005

Soft-Tissue Augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005 (15);1137-1146. KW Broder, SR Cohen. An Overview of Permanent and Semipermanent Fillers. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006 118(3 suppl.) S7\_S14 Biomaterial Implantation in Facial Esthetic Diseases:

years follow-up report. J Laryngol Otol 1995;109:593Y598

J.Biomed.Mater.Res.Part.2004; 72: 230-238. 2004.

study.Plast.Reconstr.Surgery. 1985;52: 118-125.

applications. J. Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83-A:S98-S103

Stevenson S. Biology of bone grafts. Orthoped Clin North Am. 1999; 30:543-552.

BonevSymposium, Pittsburgh, PA, August 19-23,"003,557-575.

2001;85:608Y613

11:1883-1890

Orthop. 2000; 371:10-27.

2002;25(Suppl):S561-S560

005(16);6:981-988.15

6:247-251.

(16) 6:973-977.

Ultrasonography Monitor Follow-Up

Elena Indrizzi, MDS, Luca Maria Moricca, MD, Valentina Pellacchia, MD,

of Craniofacial Surgery –Vol.19, N. 4 -July 2008

Clin

Cancer Center: a survey of patient attitudes and opinions. J Prosthet Dent

biocompatility of a Polylkymide Hydrogel for soft tissue augmentation.

ofpolyacrylamide hydrogel in human breast tissue. Plast.Reconstr.Surg.2003;

**24** 

*Canada* 

**Biomaterials in Urology - Beyond Drug** 

*The Stone Centre at Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia* 

Ureteral stents are commonly used in urology to provide urinary drainage of the upper tracts, particularly following treatment of urolithiasis. Stents are commonly plagued with infections and encrustation, particularly in stone-forming patients (Denstedt and Cadieux 2009). This involves a multistep process outlined in Figure 1. The first step is formation of a conditioning film comprised of urinary proteins, ions, and crystals that are deposited at the stent surface (Tieszer, Reid et al. 1998). The conditioning film becomes an attractive surface for bacteria to adhere to and forms a biofilm which can lead to a urinary tract infection or encrustation (Wollin, Tieszer et al. 1998; Choong and Whitfield 2000; Choong, Wood et al. 2001; Shaw, Choong et al. 2005). Bacteria have been demonstrated to adhere to the stent surface in up to 90% of indwelling stents, which in 27% of cases leads to a positive urine

Ideally, ureteral stent biomaterials would be able to limit or completely prevent the processes shown in Figure 1. Various attempts have been made to reduce the deposition of crystals, bacteria, and protein on stent surfaces including using low surface energy biomaterials (Tieszer, Reid et al. 1998), heparin coating (Cauda, Cauda et al. 2008), antimicrobial eluting biomaterials (Cadieux, Chew et al. 2006; Chew, Cadieux et al. 2006; Wignall, Goneau et al. 2008; Cadieux, Chew et al. 2009), diamond-like carbon coatings (Laube, Kleinen et al. 2007), polyethylene glycol and marine mussel adhesive proteins (Pechey, Elwood et al. 2009) to name just a few. Most have limited effectiveness and some have even shown increased bacterial adhesion compared to controls in the case of heparin coating (Lange, Elwood et al. 2009). While drug-eluting technology of biomaterials is both readily available and used clinically in other fields, its role in urology has been limited. Triclosan was used recently in ureteral stents. It held promise in *in vitro* (Chew, Cadieux et al. 2006) and animal infection models (Cadieux, Chew et al. 2006) but it fared poorly in those patients requiring chronic ureteral stents (Cadieux, Chew et al. 2009). The current methodology of technological implementation surrounding ureteral stent coating and design have come from trial and error or are borrowed technologies from coronary and vascular stenting. The time has come for the urological world to apply the same types of scientific discovery and development to problems specific to urinary devices rather than just applying the end product from other areas of medicine. What works in vascular stenting

**1. Introduction** 

culture (Reid, Denstedt et al. 1992).

may not be directly applicable to the urinary environment.

**Eluting and Degradable - A Rational** 

**Approach to Ureteral Stent Design** 

Dirk Lange, Chelsea N. Elwood and Ben H. Chew
