4.5 Article

Evaluation of a press-fit osteochondral poly(ester-urethane) scaffold in a rabbit defect model

Journal

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE-MATERIALS IN MEDICINE
Volume 25, Issue 7, Pages 1691-1700

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10856-014-5192-6

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. AO Exploratory Research Board

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact on osteochondral healing of press-fitted multiphasic osteochondral scaffolds consisting of poly(ester-urethane) (PUR) and hydroxyapatite into a cylindric osteochondral defect in the distal non-weight bearing femoral trochlear ridge of the rabbit. Two scaffolds were investigated, one with and one without an intermediate microporous membrane between the cartilage and the bone compartment of the scaffold. A control group without a scaffold placed into the defect was included. After 12 weeks macroscopic and histomorphological analyses were performed. The scaffold was easily press-fitted and provided a stable matrix for tissue repair. The membrane did not demonstrate a detrimental effect on tissue healing compared with the scaffold without membrane. However, the control group had statistically superior healing as reflected by histological differences in the cartilage and subchondral bone compartment between control group and each scaffold group. A more detailed analysis revealed that the difference was localized in the bone compartment healing. The present study demonstrates that an elastomeric PUR scaffold can easily be press-fitted into an osteochondral defect and provides a stable matrix for tissue repair. However, the multi-phasic scaffold did not provide a clear advantage for tissue healing. Future investigations should refine especially the bone phase of the implant to increase its stiffness, biocompatibility and osteoconductive activity. A more precise fabrication technique would be necessary for the matching of tissue organisation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available