Advanced

AJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kailasnath, P. Articles by Chaloupka, J. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kailasnath, P. Articles by Chaloupka, J. C.

American Journal of Neuroradiology 23:772-778, May 2002
© 2002 American Society of Neuroradiology

INTERVENTIONAL

Quantitative Assessment of Polymerization-Binding Mechanics of Cyanoacrylates: Model Development and Validation

Purushothaman Kailasnath^a and John C. Chaloupka^b

^a Division of Imaging Science, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
^b the Section of Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA

Address reprint requests to John C. Chaloupka, MD, Section of Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, JPP 3891, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA 52242

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although commonly acknowledged as paramount in significance, the mechanics of cyanoacrylate polymerization remain poorly characterized and quantified for clinical applications. This prompted development of a simplistic model for the systematic study of polymerization and binding behaviors of cyanoacrylates.

METHODS: A sliding bed apparatus was constructed that linked a strain gage with a vessel that could be filled with liquid medium, cyanoacrylate, and a microcatheter. As the cyanoacrylate polymerized, the microcatheter was mechanically drawn away very slowly from the fixed vessel, resulting in the development of forces that were recorded to characterize the dynamics of polymerization and binding. Optimization of the model required manipulation of several variables that could influence polymerization. Three different formulations of cyanoacrylate were also tested to determine whether there are significant differences in polymerization dynamics.

RESULTS: After experimenting with a few basic physical parameters of the test apparatus, consistent measurements of binding forces during cyanoacrylate polymerization could be recorded and measured. Polymerization produced a multiphasic pattern of binding forces, in which three distinct phases were observed. Furthermore, the rates of polymerization were significantly influenced by a variety of parameters, including the type of fluid within the model vessel, geometry of the model vessel, and rate of injection of acrylic into the well. Furthermore, there were significant differences in the pattern of dynamic binding forces among the various formulations of cyanoacrylate tested.

CONCLUSIONS: A standardized bench top testing apparatus has been developed, which can consistently show dynamic binding related to polymerization of cyanoacrylates. This preliminary study shows a clear multiphasic pattern of polymerization binding, which may have important clinical implications. The apparatus may be useful for gaining better insight into a variety of clinically important phenomena related to cyanoacrylate polymerization.