2013
DOI: 10.1007/s13239-013-0136-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Novel Bioresorbable Stent Design and Fabrication: Congenital Heart Disease Applications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

4
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Bench testing and preclinical results up to 6 mm diameter (DH‐6) are reported. The strut thickness of these 3–6 mm DH BDS was 0.10 mm and as expected, the recoil and collapse pressure declined with increasing diameter . The aims of this study are to manufacture larger 8 mm diameter BDS (DH‐8) applicable for CHD with increasing strut thicknesses, document the bench characteristics and investigate the inflammatory profile at 1‐week, 1‐ and 9‐ months follow‐up in a porcine model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 69%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Bench testing and preclinical results up to 6 mm diameter (DH‐6) are reported. The strut thickness of these 3–6 mm DH BDS was 0.10 mm and as expected, the recoil and collapse pressure declined with increasing diameter . The aims of this study are to manufacture larger 8 mm diameter BDS (DH‐8) applicable for CHD with increasing strut thicknesses, document the bench characteristics and investigate the inflammatory profile at 1‐week, 1‐ and 9‐ months follow‐up in a porcine model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…DH‐8 BDS were designed and fabricated as previously described . Briefly, commercially available PLLA‐32 with a molecular weight of 565 kD (Corbion, Amsterdam, Netherlands) was used.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The elastic recoil is lower for the smaller DH stents: DH‐3 (0.48% ± 0.07%, P < 0.05) and DH‐4 (0.46% ± 0.1%, P < 0.05) when compared to the DH‐5 (1.6% ± 0.08%), and DH‐6 (1.43% ± 0.14%) stents. The collapse pressure was inversely related to stent diameter and ranged upwards from a low of 0.63 ± 0.02 ATM (DH‐6) to 0.72 ± 0.02 ATM (DH‐5), 0.80 ± 0.01 ATM (DH‐4), and 1.07 ± 0.02 ATM for the DH‐3 stent . The collapse pressure is reduced with larger diameter stents and requires less work to expand the stent.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%