Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Development and physicochemical evaluation of a gelatine-based hydrogel tube for potential use in veterinary glaucoma implants Cover

Development and physicochemical evaluation of a gelatine-based hydrogel tube for potential use in veterinary glaucoma implants

Journal of Veterinary Research
Volume 70 (2026): Issue 1 (March 2026)
By: Piotr Szatkowski,  Martyna Fröhlich,  Oliwia Grałek,  Magdalena Tabor,  Edyta Molik and  Zuzanna Flis  
Open Access
|Mar 2026

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1.

Schematic of the hydrogel implant designed for veterinary glaucoma surgical use

Fig. 2.

Schematic diagram of the setup for measuring the ionic conductivity of hydrogels

Fig. 3.

Effect of immersion environment on the compressive strength of all types of hydrogel samples. A – sample No. 1 with a glutaraldehyde concentration of 15% and the addition of 19 mL of glutaraldehyde; B – sample No. 2 with a glutaraldehyde concentration of 15% and the addition of 21 mL of glutaraldehyde; C – sample No. 3 with a glutaraldehyde concentration of 16% and the addition of 20 mL of glutaraldehyde; D – sample No. 4 with a concentration of 15% and the addition of 20 mL of glutaraldehyde. Blue line – sample immersed in ethanol; orange line – sample immersed in water

Fig. 4.

Comparison of compressive strength for different hydrogel formulations immersed in 99.8% ethanol. Type 1 – hydrogel of 15% gelatine concentration and 19 mL glutaraldehyde; Type 2 – hydrogel of 15% gelatine concentration and 21 mL glutaraldehyde; Type 3 – hydrogel of 16% gelatine concentration and 19 mL glutaraldehyde; Type 4 – hydrogel of 15% gelatine concentration and 20 mL glutaraldehyde

Fig. 5.

Comparison of KCl ion concentrations in the test tubes (where the solution before passing through the hydrogel is the ion source in the system) for the tested samples. No. 1 – hydrogel of 15% gelatine concentration and 19 mL glutaraldehyde; No. 2 – hydrogel of 15% gelatine concentration and 21 mL glutaraldehyde; No. 3 – hydrogel of 16% gelatine concentration and 19 mL glutaraldehyde; No. 4 – hydrogel of 15% gelatine concentration and 20 mL glutaraldehyde

Fig. 6.

Comparison of KCl ion concentrations in the containers (after passing through the hydrogel) for the tested samples. No. 1 – hydrogel of 15% gelatine concentration and 19 mL glutaraldehyde; No. 2 – hydrogel of 15% gelatine concentration and 21 mL glutaraldehyde; No. 3 – hydrogel of 16% gelatine concentration and 19 mL glutaraldehyde; No. 4 – hydrogel of 15% gelatine concentration and 20 mL glutaraldehyde

Fig. 7.

Differential scanning calorimetry curve of a hydrogel sample immersed in water but not alcohol cured, with a marked transformation region

Fig. 8.

Differential scanning calorimetry curve of a hydrogel sample cured in 99.8% ethanol, with a marked transformation region

Fig. 9.

Microstructure of hydrogels at 100× magnification. A – alcohol-conditioned hydrogel; B – water-conditioned hydrogel

Fig. 10.

3D analysis proceeding from 100× magnification of pore distribution in hydrogel samples. A – alcohol-conditioned hydrogel; B – water-conditioned hydrogel

Fig. 11.

Microstructure of hydrogel samples at 200× magnification. A – alcohol-conditioned hydrogel; B – water-conditioned hydrogel

Fig. 12.

Comparison of microstructure of samples at 20× magnification A – alcohol-conditioned hydrogel; B – water-conditioned hydrogel

Mechanical properties of the developed implant alongside those of available clinical solutions

Designed implantXEN Gel StentEX-PRESSBaerveldt
MaterialGelatine + glutaraldehydePork gelatine + glutaraldehydeStainless steelSilicone
Inner dia1–3 mm (core)45 μm50 μm300 μm
LengthAs needed6 mm2.64 mmVarious
FlexibilityHigh after hydration10° (15 μN), 35° (70 μN)Rigid2,000 μN

Small-increment formulation changes to hydrogel samples

Gelatine typeConcentration (%)Sample No.Glutaraldehyde addition (mL)Storage environment
15119
Chemically purified15221Ethanol 99.8%
16320
15420

Comparison of the properties of food-grade and chemically purified gelatine hydrogels after 72 h immersion

Gelatine typeConcentration (%)Immersion environmentShape retention
Chemically purified15EthanolPreserved shape, durable, stiff and stable
Chemically purified15WaterPreserved shape, numerous cracks on the surface
Food-grade15WaterPartial disintegration

Comparison of the properties of food-grade and chemically purified gelatine hydrogels

Gelatine typeConcentration (%)Dissolution temperature (°C)Crosslinking speed
Food-grade1558.0Average
Chemically purified1543.2High

Comparison of the quality of food-grade gelatine hydrogels by gelatine concentration

Concentration (%)Dissolution temperature (°C)CrosslinkingHydrogel shape
555.0PartialNo shape
1055.2CompleteImpermanent shape
1558.0CompletePreserved shape

Results of the compression test of hydrogels immersed in alcohol

Relative shortening under given force (mm)
Sample No.10 N20 N30 N40 N50 N
13.043.654.064.264.55
25.24----
34.675.82---
43.244.134.554.975.23

Food-grade gelatine solutions and formulations

Concentration (%)Gelatine mass (g)Distilled water volume (mL)
50.52610
101.12010
151.76510
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jvetres-2026-0015 | Journal eISSN: 2450-8608
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 157 - 168
Submitted on: Jun 26, 2025
|
Accepted on: Mar 13, 2026
|
Published on: Mar 19, 2026
Published by: National Veterinary Research Institute in Pulawy
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
companion animals,
gelatine stent,
glaucoma,
hydrogel,
implant
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Molecular biology,
Microbiology and virology,
Life sciences, other,
Medicine,
Veterinary medicine

© 2026 Piotr Szatkowski, Martyna Fröhlich, Oliwia Grałek, Magdalena Tabor, Edyta Molik, Zuzanna Flis, published by National Veterinary Research Institute in Pulawy
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 70 (2026): Issue 1 (March 2026)Next article