Implantable Tissue Scaffold
20200222035 ยท 2020-07-16
Assignee
Inventors
- Michael S. Klein (Salinas, CA, US)
- Michael G. Fourkas (Sunnyvale, CA, US)
- James Su (Newark, CA, US)
- Matias Bruzoni (Redwood City, CA, US)
Cpc classification
A61B17/0057
HUMAN NECESSITIES
A61B2017/00004
HUMAN NECESSITIES
A61B2017/00606
HUMAN NECESSITIES
A61B2017/00637
HUMAN NECESSITIES
International classification
Abstract
A biodegradable scaffold for wound closure including a central rod and two spaced plates. The central rod may have an engagement block on top for stabilizing a implanting tool. The two spaced plates include an upper plate connected to the central rod and a lower plate connected to the central rod. Each of the upper and lower plates may include perforations which may be useful for detachably connecting an implanting tool and which encourage growth of the tissue. The biodegradable scaffold allows tension free anatomical alignment of tissue within the plates and facilitate wound healing. The upper and lower plate may have a helical, in which each plate may extend around the central rod greater than 360 degrees. The helical shape creates a camber feature that serves to draw or pull tissue around the wound defect into the scaffold during the course when deploying the scaffold.
Claims
1. An implantable tissue scaffold for wound closure comprising: a central rod; an upper plate angularly positioned on said central rod; and a lower plate angularly positioned on said central rod and spaced from said upper plate by a defect thickness dimension; said implantable tissue scaffold being a single unitary piece made of a biodegradable material.
2. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 1, wherein said upper plate and said lower plate are, at least in part essentially perpendicular to said central rod.
3. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 1, wherein said upper plate and said lower plate include fractional sections circumferentially positioned about said central rod.
4. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 1 wherein at least said lower plate cambers helically.
5. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 1, wherein said upper plate and said lower plate include a plate geometry which promotes tissue through growth.
6. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 5, wherein said plate geometry which promotes tissue through growth includes a plurality of perforations on each of said upper plate and said lower plate.
7. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 6, wherein said plurality of perforations include at least a band of perforations radially closer to said hub, and a band of perforations radially more distant from said hub.
8. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 1, further including an engagement feature proximate to said upper plate on an outer side of said upper plate.
9. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 1, wherein said engagement feature includes a plurality of grasping perforations on said upper plate and said lower plate.
10. An implantable tissue scaffold for closure of endoscopic tissue defects, comprising: a tissue scaffold body scaled to a laparoscopic trocar port defect; said scaffold body including: a central rod; an upper plate angularly positioned circumferentially on said central rod, said upper plate having a helically cambering geometry; and a lower plate angularly positioned circumferentially on said central rod, said lower plate having a helically cambering and spaced from said upper plate by a defect thickness dimension; said implantable tissue scaffold being a single unitary piece made of a biodegradable material.
11. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 10, wherein said upper plate and said lower plate are, at least in part essentially perpendicular to said central rod.
12. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 10, wherein said upper plate and said lower plate each include at least three fractional sections circumferentially positioned about said central rod.
13. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 10, wherein said upper plate and said lower plate include a plate geometry which promotes tissue through growth.
14. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 13, wherein said plate geometry which promotes tissue through growth includes a plurality of perforations on each of said upper plate and said lower plate.
15. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 14, wherein said plurality of perforations include at least a band of perforations radially closer to said hub, and a band of perforations radially more distant from said hub.
16. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 10, further including an engagement feature proximate to said upper plate on an outer side of said upper plate.
17. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 10, wherein said biodegradable material has a predictable biodegradability and will biodegrade in three to five months after implanted into an animal laparoscopic port defect.
18. An implantable tissue scaffold for closure of laparoscopic trocar port defects, comprising: a biodegradable tissue scaffold body scaled to an laparoscopic trocar port defects; said scaffold body including: a central rod; an upper plate angularly positioned circumferentially on said central rod, said upper plate having a helically chambering geometry and having a plurality of perforations on said upper plate; and a lower plate angularly positioned circumferentially on said central rod, said lower plate having a helically cambering geometry, said lower plate also having a plurality of perforations, said lower plate spaced from said upper plate by a defect thickness dimension; said implantable tissue scaffold being a single unitary piece.
19. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 18, wherein said upper plate and said lower plate are, at least in part essentially perpendicular to said central rod and include a number of fractional sections.
20. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 18 wherein said plurality of perforations include on each of said upper and said lower plate at least a band of perforations radially closer to said hub, and a band of perforations radially more distant from said hub.
21. The implantable tissue scaffold of claim 18, further including an engagement feature configured to be grasped by a tissue scaffold insertion tool.
Description
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0028]
[0029]
[0030]
[0031]
[0032]
[0033]
[0034]
[0035]
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0036] Specific embodiments and examples are illustrated in the figures and described in the detailed description. However, it is envisioned that the disclosed tissue scaffold may be put into practice using any of a number of elements, and could be made using a variety of methods, whether presently known or not. The present disclosure should in no way be limited to the exemplary implementations and techniques illustrated in the drawings and described below. In addition, elements, features and designs illustrated in the drawings are not necessarily drawn to scale.
[0037] In one or more embodiments, as shown in
[0038] In one embodiment, the upper and lower plates are designed in a screw-like manner, such that opposing ends of the upper plate 106 are attached to the engagement block 104 on the central rod 102, and that the upper end of the upper plate 106 aligns with the top side of the engagement block 104, and the lower end of the upper plate 106 aligns with the bottom side of the engagement block 104. In this embodiment, the base element of each plate is a three-quarter circle where the first and second quadrants are essentially perpendicular to the engagement block 104, and the third quadrant cambers helically. The corner of the first quadrant is rounded to avoid any sharp edges, while the edge of the third quadrant has a semi-circular attachment which attaches on one side to the outside of the inner edge and on the inside to where the edge meets the central rod 102. The quadrant that is helical on the upper plate 106 is the opposite of the quadrant of the lower plate 108 supporting defect edges of tissue alignment where the scaffold is encouraged to stay near the wound without injuring the tissue.
[0039] The term scaffold as used here is to define the surfaces of the upper plate and lower plate which contact the tissue, into which the tissue will grow as the plates disintegrate. In one embodiment, the upper and lower plates have perforations which aid in this process.
[0040] In other embodiments, the first and third quadrants of each of the upper plate 106 and lower plate 108 are perpendicular to the central rod 102, while the middle quadrant is helical in the same direction. However instead of a single 90-degree arc, the third quadrant provides a complete loop as well, about 5 quadrants or 450 degrees, which provides more of a grabbing effect on the tissue between the two plates, further encouraging the scaffold to stay near the wound. The term quadrants are illustrative of a division of the plates into fractional sections. The plates are circumferential about the central rod 102. These plates may be something less than 360 degrees about the central rod, make a single 360degree covering, or include 5 quadrants and be about 450 degrees to magnify the grabbing effect of the device.
[0041]
[0042]
[0043]
[0044]
[0045]
[0046]
[0047]
[0048] As illustrated in
[0049] In one or more embodiments, the device is used as follows. An insertion device is detachably coupled from above the upper plate 114 by coupling with the upper base perforations 116, using the engagement block 104 to provide stability. After the trocar has been removed from the abdominal wall entry site, the joined insertion device and attached scaffold are placed in the trocar port site and positioned such that the lower plate 108 engages the peritoneal layer of the intra-abdominal cavity and/or the fascia muscle layer within the length of the tissue tunnel. The helical shape contains a camber feature that services to draw or pull tissue around the wound defect into the scaffold during the course of deploying the scaffold. At that point in time, the insertion tool can be detached from the scaffold and removed from the operative field. The implantable scaffold has engaged tissue between the upper plate 106 and lower plate 108, securing tissue in anatomical alignment while the trocar port has time to heal. The upper base perforations 116 and lower base perforations 110 are there to encourage the tissue ingrowth into the scaffold and facilitate healing of the trocar port defect.
[0050] As shown in the illustrated embodiments, the upper plate 106 and lower plate 108 have two quadrants that are essentially parallel to each other and are displaced from each other by a single plate thickness. A third quadrant is cambered to allow the upper and lower plates to have an essentially uniform thickness while one quadrant is one plate thickens further up or down the central rod 102. This is best shown visualized in
General Composition of the Wound Closure Device
[0051] Materials specified for the wound closure device are specific for its intended application and use. The scope of materials that will satisfy the requirements of this application is unusually narrow. This is a direct consequence of the specificity and functional demands characteristic of the intended surgical application.
[0052] The intention for the wound closure device is to close and secure the trocar port defect in the fascia. This requires a known and finite healing interval of some three to five months. Its purpose fulfilled at the end of this period, making continued presence of the closure device a potential liability. Maurus and Kaeding (Maurus, P. B. and Kaeding, C. C., Bioabsorbable Implant Material Review, Oper. Tech. Sports Med 12, 158-160,2004) describe the advantages of a device that is biodegradable. This means that the materials will degrade or disintegrate, being absorbed in the surrounding local tissue environment after a definite, predictable, and desired period of time. One advantage of such materials over non-degradable or essentially stable materials is that after the interval for which they are applied (i.e. healing time) has elapsed, they are fully biodegraded and do not act as a residual foreign body. This is most significant as it minimizes risks associated with foreign body reaction, chronic inflammation and/or suture granuloma. Furthermore, the presence of the scaffold structure supports tension free anatomic alignment of the tissue defect and facilitates wound healing.
[0053] A disadvantage of these types of materials is that their biodegradable characteristic makes them susceptible to degradation under normal ambient conditions. There is usually sufficient moisture or humidity in the atmosphere to initiate their degradation even upon relatively brief exposure. This means that precautions must be taken throughout their processing and fabrication into useful forms, and in their storage and handling, to avoid moisture absorption. This is not a serious limitation as many materials require handling in controlled atmosphere chambers and sealed packaging; but it is essential that such precautions are observed. Middleton and Tipton (Middleton, J. and Tipton A. Synthetic Biodegradable Polymers As Medical Devices Medical Plastics and Biomaterials Magazine, March 1998) found that this characteristic also dictates that their sterilization before surgical use cannot be done using autoclaves, but alternative approaches must be employed (e.g. exposure to atmospheres of ethylene oxide or gamma radiation with cobalt 60).
[0054] While biodegradability is an essential material characteristic for the wound closure device, the intended application is such that a further requirement is that the material is formulated and manufactured with sufficient compositional and process control to provide a precisely predictable and reliable degree of biodegradability. The period of biodegradability corresponds to the healing interval for the trocar defect in the fascia layer, which is typically three to five months.
[0055] In these materials, simple chemical hydrolysis of the hydrolytically unstable backbone of the polymer is the prevailing mechanism for its degradation. As discussed in Middleton and Tipton (Middleton, J. and Tipton A referenced previously), this type of degradation when the rate at which water penetrates the material exceeds that at which the polymer is converted into water-soluble materials is known as bulk erosion.
[0056] Biodegradable polymers may be either natural or synthetic. In general, synthetic polymers offer more advantages than natural materials in that their compositions can be more readily finely-tuned to provide a wider range of properties and better lot-to-lot uniformity and, accordingly, offer more general reliability and predictability and are the preferred source.
[0057] Synthetic absorbable materials have been fabricated primarily from three polymers: polyglycolic acid (PGA), polylactic acid (PLA) and polydioxanone (PDS).
[0058] These are alpha polyesters or poly (alpha-hydroxy) acids. The dominant ones are PLA and PGA and have been studied for several decades. Gilding and Reed (Gilding, D. K and Reed A. M., Biodegradable Polymers for Use in Surgery Polymer 20, 1459-1464) discussed how each of these materials has distinctive, unique properties. One of the key advantages of these polymers is that they facilitate the growth of blood vessels and cells in the polymer matrix as it degrades, so that the polymer is slowly replaced by living tissue as the polymer degrades.
[0059] In recent years, researchers have found it desirable for obtaining specific desirable properties to prepare blends of these two dominant types, resulting in a highly useful form, or co-polymer, designated as PLGA or poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid). Asete and Sabilov (Asete, C. E. and Sabilov C. M., Synthesis and Characterization of PLGA Nanoparticles, Journal of Biomaterials SciencePolymer Edition 17 (3) 247-289 (2006)) discuss how this form is currently used in a host of FDA-approved therapeutic devices owing to its biodegradability and biocompatibility.
[0060] In one or more embodiments, the biodegradable wound closure device may be made of biodegradable material of different stability (i.e. half-life). While it is important for the material that is in direct contact with the fascia needs to stay in place for a few months, while the rest of the implantable structure can degrade significantly in a matter of weeks without affecting the performance of the payload. In one or more embodiments.