PuraStat RADA16 Self-Assembling Peptide Reduces Postoperative Abdominal Adhesion Formation in a Rabbit Cecal Sidewall Injury Model

Eun Seok Gil, Elton Aleksi, Lisa Spirio, Eun Seok Gil, Elton Aleksi, Lisa Spirio

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effect of PuraStat (2.5% RADA16) administration on postoperative abdominal adhesion formation in an in vivo model. Methods: Anesthetized New Zealand white rabbits underwent cecal sidewall abrasion surgery in which the cecal serosa and juxtaposed parietal peritoneum were abraded after access through an abdominal midline incision. Eight animals were randomized to receive PuraStat administration at the interface of the injured tissues before incision closure, and five animals served as untreated controls. Treated animals received 3-12 ml PuraStat solution per lesion. Animals were sacrificed 14 days after surgery and examined for adhesion formation at the wound site. Results: At study terminus, adhesions were identified in 90% (9/10) of abraded cecum/peritoneal wound sites in untreated controls versus 25% (4/16) of PuraStat-treated sites (p = 0.004). Mean ± SD Total Adhesion Score (average of the values for extent + strength of the adhesion in both defects per animal; maximum score = 14 points) was significantly 76% lower in PuraStat-treated animals (2.0 ± 3.0 points) compared to untreated controls (8.2 ± 1.9 points) (p = 0.029). Mean adhesion coverage area of wound sites was 79% lower in PuraStat-treated animals than controls (p < 0.001), and mean adhesion durability was 72% lower in PuraStat-treated animals versus controls (p = 0.005). Remnant hydrogel was observed at the wound sites of 75% of treated animals at postoperative Day 14. Conclusion: PuraStat treatment has a positive protective effect in the cecal sidewall injury model, and significantly reduces abdominal adhesion formation at the interface of the injured cecum and overlying peritoneal sidewall defect.

Keywords: PuraStat; RADA16; abdominal adhesions; cecal sidewall injury; hydrogel; nanofiber; self-assembling peptide; wound healing.

Conflict of interest statement

Authors EG, EA, and LS were employed by the company 3-D Matrix, Inc.

Copyright © 2021 Gil, Aleksi and Spirio.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Chemical structure and self-assembly of RADA16 into higher-order hydrogels. (A): The RADA16 peptide has 16 amino acids organized as repeated 4-amino acid sequences containing “R” (positively-charged arginine), “A” (hydrophobic alanine), and “D” (negatively-charged aspartic acid) residues. (B): RADA16 undergoes spontaneous and revisable self-assembly in acidic solutions to generate nanofibers. RADA16 molecules with β-sheet conformation interact through face-to-face hydrophobic interactions and edge-to-edge hydrogen bonding to form layered and extended nanofibers, ∼ 6 nm wide. These extracellular matrix-like nanofibers form a viscous and transparent aqueous solution at a relatively low concentration range (e.g., 0.1–2.5% weight/volume). (C): Illustration of RADA16 structure and properties as it is applied to and gels on a wound site. Acidic aqueous solutions of RADA16 are viscous and exhibit thixotropic disassembly/reassembly, which allows their easy administration to wound sites through catheters and syringes, with viscosity returning immediately after administration. Upon contact with the physiological pH of body fluids including blood, lymph and interstitial fluid, the surface net charges of RADA16 nanofibers become zero resulting in the physical crosslinking by hydrophobic interactions between neighboring RADA16 nanofibers, so that RADA16 solution forms in-situ hydrogels on the wound site and act as a physical adhesive that is hemostatic and supports wound healing. Adopted from Sankar et al., Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021; doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.679525, in accordance with Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Abdominal adhesion formation at the cecal serosa/peritoneal junction in the rabbit cecal sidewall injury model. This model predictably and quickly generates robust abdominal adhesion formation, with grossly visible adhesions typically present by 7–14 days after surgery. Briefly, the abdominal cavity was accessed through a 12-cm ventral midline incision and bleeding injury was induced on the cecal serosa by abrasion with a sterile dry gauze pad and on the juxtaposed peritoneal inner surface by shallow excision and scraping with a scalpel blade. Approximately ≈2 × 4.5 cm wounds were irrigated with saline and then either treated with topical administration of PuraStat solution or left untreated as Controls before midline incision closure and recovery. At postoperative Day 14, adhesions were significantly more numerous and sizeable at the cecum/peritoneum interface in Control [Panel (A)] animals compared to PuraStat-treated animals [Panel (B)] whose abraded tissue surfaces received 3–12 ml/lesion of PuraStat solution (2.5% RADA16) immediately after wound creation and just prior to abdominal closure. The mean ± SD Total Adhesion Score (average of the scores for extent + strength of the adhesions in both defects per animal) was significantly 76% lower in PuraStat-treated animals at 2.0 ± 3.0 points compared to 8.2 ± 1.9 points in untreated control animals (p = 0.029 by unpaired, two-tailed t-test; maximum possible score = 14 points). The self-assembling RADA16-based hydrogel significantly reduced both the adhesion extent (percent of initial wound area covered by adhesions) and adhesion durability. Remnant PuraStat was observed in 75% of treated animals at the 14-days study terminus.

References

    1. 3-D Matrix Europe SAS (2019). PuraSinus® Absorbable Haemostatic Material Instructions for Use. Available at: (Accessed November 10, 2021).
    1. Akiyama N., Yamamoto-Fukuda T., Haruo Takahashi H., Takehiko Koji T. (2013). In Situ tissue Engineering with Synthetic Self-Assembling Peptide Nanofiber Scaffolds, PuraMatrix, for Mucosal Regeneration in the Rat Middle-Ear. Int. J. Nanomed. 8, 2629. 10.2147/IJN.S47279
    1. Arung W., Meurisse M., Detry O. (2011). Pathophysiology and Prevention of Postoperative Peritoneal Adhesions. World J. Gastroenterol. 17, 4545. 10.3748/wjg.v17.i41.4545
    1. Cooper K., Young J., Wadsworth S., Cui H., diZerega G. S., Rodgers K. E. (2007). Reduction of Post-Surgical Adhesion Formation with Tranilast. J. Surg. Res. 141, 153–161. 10.1016/j.jss.2006.05.044
    1. Edwards-Gayle C. J. C., Hamley I. W. (2017). Self-Assembly of Bioactive Peptides, Peptide Conjugates, and Peptide Mimetic Materials. Org. Biomol. Chem. 15, 5867–5876. 10.1039/c7ob01092c
    1. Ellis H., Moran B. J., Thompson J. N., Parker M. C., Wilson M. S., Menzies D., et al. (1999). Adhesion-Related Hospital Readmissions after Abdominal and Pelvic Surgery: a Retrospective Cohort Study. Lancet 353, 1476–1480. 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09337-4
    1. Hermans M. H. E., Brown L., Darmoc M. (2012). Adhesion Prevention in an Intraperitoneal Wound Model: Performance of Two Resorbable Hemostats in a Controlled Study in Rabbits. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 100B, 1621–1626. 10.1002/jbm.b.32730
    1. Hindocha A., Beere L., Dias S., Watson A., Ahmad G. (2015). Adhesion Prevention Agents for Gynaecological Surgery: an Overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 1, CD011254. Agents that prevent the development of abdominal adhesions following surgery: an overview of Cochrane reviews. 10.1002/14651858.CD011254.pub2
    1. Hoffmann N. E., Siddiqui S. A., Agarwal S., McKellar S. H., Kurtz H. J., Gettman M. T., et al. (2009). Choice of Hemostatic Agent Influences Adhesion Formation in a Rat Cecal Adhesion Model. J. Surg. Res. 155, 77–81. 10.1016/j.jss.2008.08.008
    1. Lee M. F., Ma Z., Ananda A. (2017). A Novel Haemostatic Agent Based on Self-Assembling Peptides in the Setting of Nasal Endoscopic Surgery, a Case Series. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 41, 461–464. 10.1016/j.ijscr.2017.11.024
    1. Lee S., Trinh T. H. T., Yoo M., Shin J., Lee H., Kim J., et al. (2019). Self-assembling Peptides and Their Application in the Treatment of Diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20, 5850. 10.3390/ijms20235850
    1. Menzies D., Ellis H. (1990). Intestinal Obstruction from Adhesions-How Big Is the Problem? Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 72, 60–63.
    1. Monk B. J., Berman M. L., Montz F. J. (1994). Adhesions after Extensive Gynecologic Surgery: Clinical Significance, Etiology, and Prevention. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 170, 1396–1403. 10.1016/s0002-9378(94)70170-9
    1. Moris D., Chakedis J., Rahnemai-Azar A. A., Wilson A., Hennessy M. M., Athanasiou A., et al. (2017). Postoperative Abdominal Adhesions: Clinical Significance and Advances in Prevention and Management. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 21, 1713–1722. 10.1007/s11605-017-3488-9
    1. Mutsaers S. E., Prêle C. M.-A., Pengelly S., Herrick S. E. (2016). Mesothelial Cells and Peritoneal Homeostasis. Fertil. Steril. 106, 1018–1024. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.005
    1. National Research Council (2003). Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. 8th edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available at: (Accessed November 10, 2021).
    1. 3-D Matrix Inc. Needham M. A. (2014). PuraStat® Absorbable Haemostatic Material Instructions For Use. Available at: (Accessed November 10, 2021).
    1. Okabayashi K., Ashrafian H., Zacharakis E., Hasegawa H., Kitagawa Y., Athanasiou T., et al. (2014). Adhesions after Abdominal Surgery: a Systematic Review of the Incidence, Distribution and Severity. Surg. Today 44, 405–420. 10.1007/s00595-013-0591-8
    1. Oumrani S., Barret M., Bordaçahar B., Beuvon F., Hochart G., Pagnon-Minot A., et al. (2019). Application of a Self-Assembling Peptide Matrix Prevents Esophageal Stricture after Circumferential Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in a Pig Model. PLoS One 14, e0212362. 10.1371/journal.pone.0212362
    1. Pilpel Y., Pines G., Birkenfeld A., Bornstein S., Miller R. (2019). Metabolic Syndrome Is a Risk Factor for Post-Operative Adhesions: Need for Novel Treatment Strategies. Horm. Metab. Res. 51, 35–41. 10.1055/a-0798-3931
    1. Rami Reddy S. R., Cappell M. S. (2017). A Systematic Review of the Clinical Presentation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Small Bowel Obstruction. Curr. Gastroenterol. Rep. 19, 28. 10.1007/s11894-017-0566-9
    1. Rodgers K., Cohn D., Hotovely A., Pines E., Diamond M. P., diZerega G. (1998). Evaluation of Polyethylene Glycol/Polylactic Acid Films in the Prevention of Adhesions in the Rabbit Adhesion Formation and Reformation Sidewall Models. Fertil. Steril. 69, 403–408. 10.1016/s0015-0282(97)00574-8
    1. Rodrigues M., Kosaric N., Bonham C. A., Gurtner G. C. (2019). Wound Healing: a Cellular Perspective. Physiol. Rev. 99, 665–706. 10.1152/physrev.00067.2017
    1. Sankar S., O’Neill K., Bagot D’Arc M., Rebeca F., Buffier M., Aleksi E., et al. (2021). Clinical Use of the Self-Assembling Peptide RADA16: A Review of Current and Future Trends in Biomedicine. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 9, 679525. 10.3389/fbioe.2021.679525
    1. Strik C., Stommel M. W. J., Hol J. C., van Goor H., ten Broek R. P. G. (2018). Quality of Life, Functional Status and Adhesiolysis during Elective Abdominal Surgery. Am. J. Surg. 215, 104–112. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.08.001
    1. Subramaniam S., Kandiah K., Chedgy F., Fogg C., Thayalasekaran S., Alkandari A., et al. (2020). A Novel Self-Assembling Peptide for Hemostasis during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Endoscopy 53, 27–35. 10.1055/a-1198-0558
    1. Tabibian N., Swehli E., Boyd A., Umbreen A., Tabibian J. H. (2017). Abdominal Adhesions: A Practical Review of an Often Overlooked Entity. Ann. Med. Surg. 15, 9–13. 10.1016/j.amsu.2017.01.021
    1. Takeuchi T., Bizenjima T., Ishii Y., Imamura K., Suzuki E., Seshima F., et al. (2016). Enhanced Healing of Surgical Periodontal Defects in Rats Following Application of a Self-Assembling Peptide Nanofibre Hydrogel. J. Clin. Periodontol. 43, 279–288. 10.1111/jcpe.12515
    1. ten Broek R. P., Strik C., Issa Y., Bleichrodt R. P., van Goor H. (2013b). Adhesiolysis-Related Morbidity in Abdominal Surgery. Ann. Surg. 258, 98–106. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826f4969
    1. ten Broek R. P. G., Issa Y., van Santbrink E. J. P., Bouvy N. D., Kruitwagen R. F. P. M., Jeekel J., et al. (2013a). Burden of Adhesions in Abdominal and Pelvic Surgery: Systematic Review and Met-Analysis. BMJ 347, f5588. 10.1136/bmj.f5588
    1. Tsiamoulos Z. P., Rajaratnam R., Sibbons P. D., Saunders B. P. (2017). Mo1994 Use of a Novel Synthetic, Topical Gel to Enhance Healing Post Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Randomised, Blinded Preclinical Study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 85, AB512 Abstract Mo1994. 10.1016/j.gie.2017.03.1181
    1. Uraoka T., Ochiai Y., Fujimoto A., Goto O., Kawahara Y., Kobayashi N., et al. (2016). A Novel Fully Synthetic and Self-Assembled Peptide Solution for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection-Induced Ulcer in the Stomach. Gastrointest. Endosc. 83, 1259–1264. 10.1016/j.gie.2015.11.015
    1. United States Food and Drug Administration (2019). 510(k) Premarket Notification K183015, Summary. “Polymer, Ear, Nose and Throat, Synthetic, Absorbable”; PuraSinus®; 3-D Matrix Inc. Available at: (Accessed November 10, 2021).
    1. United States Food and Drug Administration (2021). 510(k) Premarket Notification K210098, Summary. “Hemostatic Device for Endoscopic Gastrointestinal Use”; PuraStat®; 3-D Matrix Inc. Available at: (Accessed November 10, 2021).
    1. Wang R., Wang Z., Guo Y., Li H., Chen Z. (2019). Design of a RADA16-Based Self-Assembling Peptide Nanofiber Scaffold for Biomedical Applications. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 30, 713–736. 10.1080/09205063.2019k10.1080/09205063.2019.1605868
    1. Weibel M. A., Majno G. (1973). Peritoneal Adhesions and Their Relation to Abdominal Surgery. A Postmortem Study. Am. J. Surg. 126, 345–353. 10.1016/s0002-9610(73)80123-0
    1. Wong E., Ho J., Smith M., Sritharan N., Riffat F., Smith M. C. (2020). Use of PuraStat, a Novel Haemostatic Matrix Based on Self-Assembling Peptides in the Prevention of Nasopharyngeal Adhesion Formation. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 70, 227–229. 10.1016/j.ijscr.2020.04.027
    1. Yeo Y., Adil M., Bellas E., Astashkina A., Chaudhary N., Kohane D. S. (2007). Prevention of Peritoneal Adhesions with an In Situ Cross-Linkable Hyaluronan Hydrogel Delivering Budesonide. J. Controlled Release 120, 178–185. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2007.04.016
    1. Zhang S. (2017). Discovery and Design of Self-Assembling Peptides. Interf. Focus 7, 20170028. 10.1098/rsfs.2017.0028

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere