{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019783024888321635, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004467134652201659, 'mean_word_length': 5.373983739837398, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Biologically inert synthetic dural substitutes. Appraisal of a medical-grade aliphatic polyurethane and a polysiloxane-carbonate block copolymer.

Two types of artificial membranes, a medical-grade aliphatic polyurethane and a polysiloxane-carbonate block copolymer, were tested as substitutes for dura in 24 and 12 rabbits, respectively. The films were placed either epidurally, subdurally, or as dural grafts in equal subgroups of animals. The postoperative course was uneventful with no manifestations of convulsive disorder or cerebrospinal fluid leak. The animals were sacrificed 3, 6, or 9 months after implantation of the artificial membranes. Both types of artificial membranes were easily removed from the underlying nervous and the other surrounding tissues. The histological examination failed to reveal adhesions, neomembrane formations, or any type of foreign body reactions to the polyurethane film. The implantation of the polysiloxane-carbonate film caused no reaction when it was applied epidurally. As a dural graft, the polysiloxane-carbonate copolymer induced the formation of a thin neomembrane of one to two layers of fibroblasts which formed a watertight seal of the dural defect. A similar thin neomembrane was found to encase this artificial membrane in the group of animals in which it was implanted subdurally. There was no foreign body reaction to the polysiloxane-carbonate film. The authors conclude that these materials hold promise as dural substitutes or in the prevention of spinal dural scarring, and should be evaluated clinically.