Currently so-called biomaterials are chosen because they are reasonably successful at hiding from the body’s immune system, and are consequently not rejected. All the same, within a month of implanting them, the body isolates implants by wrapping them in a collagenous, avascular sac. Materials are considered to be ‘biocompatible’ if this sac is not too thick.
Rather than building implants out of materials that try to hide from the body’s systems, Professor Buddy Ratner believes that we should be creating them from materials that are specifically designed to engage with biological processes. This could take the form of materials made with specifically sized pores that encourage small blood vessels to actively grow through the implant, or implants coated with DNA that specifically prevents formation of the collagenous capsule.
Both of these let the implant and the body actively work together, rather than simply try to prevent them fighting against each other.
Functioning together in symbiosis or some other non-combative relationship is appealing. Certainly, this technology would reduce long term loads on the immune system.
Should medical implants be inert or should they react with the body?
Not a question anyone here is qualified to answer, so I ‘ll say both or whatever works.
Seems like if something is truly “inert”, it would not, by definition, impose any long-term load on the immune system.
Why would this “sac” once formed place any burden on the immune system? The professor says devices that in effect merge into the body will “function better, last longer, encourage healing and provide enhanced patient satisfaction.” But the story doesn’t explain why intentional interaction with body processes like vascularization wouldn’t carry unintended side effects. Or why letting the body encapsulate the foreign device is riskier. It reads like a PR fluff piece for something someone wants to try “because we can.” Bait for new grants, maybe.
I cannot believe that this press release from Wiley & Sons is dated July 2007, and shame on Buddy Ratner for letting them use this quote to promote whatever book they must be promoting. This very concept is discussed thoroughly in the textbook Biomaterials Science published in 1996 and co-edited by, you guessed it, Buddy Ratner. The idea itself is even decades older and is currently incorporated into many different commercial medical devices (the one I am most familiar with is hydroxyapatite and other calcium phosphate derivatives for bone filler or implant coatings, which actually promote new bone growth and bone integration with the implant).
This commentary is about as revolutionary as suggesting that Intel should try to make computer chips that run faster while consuming less energy.
Should medical implants be inert or should they react with the body?
I say yes.
Penile implants should encourage the growth of more nerve endings.