Tissuemed spends its life explaining to the world of surgery just what its proposition is….think of it as a liquid sealant that has been presented in solid form, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of applying liquids…migration, controllability, preparation time to name a few. But spinning this around, what would TissuePatch look like if it was turned into a liquid? How much would it represent compared with one of the traditional liquid sealants? Why is this in any way important? Because in theory if a job can be done with a smaller foreign body, with improved efficacy and ease of use, then it should at least be considered. The pdf attached here makes it pretty clear that the coverage provided by “a droplet” of TissuePatch would require a syringe full of liquid sealant if it is assumed that the liquid will be laid down to a depth of 2mm, which in our experience is the minimum likely to be applied in most settings. So when characterising the body’s reaction to foreign material, while it’s important to look at the constituents of the implant, it is logical that the sheer volume implanted is also a key consideration….reducing the amount of a material that will be removed by macrophagic activity must improve the body’s ability to deal with the foreign body. Less is more, as they say.
