4.3 Article

Scaffold devices for rotator cuff repair

Journal

JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 251-265

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.10.003

Keywords

Scaffold device; ECM scaffold; synthetic scaffold; rotator cuff repair; rotator cuff repair augmentation

Funding

  1. Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation
  2. Tornier

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rotator cuff tears affect 40% or more of those aged older than 60 years, and repair failure rates of 20% to 70% remain a significant clinical challenge. Hence, there is a need for repair strategies that can augment the repair by mechanically reinforcing it, while at the same time biologically enhancing the intrinsic healing potential of the tendon. Tissue engineering strategies to improve rotator cuff repair healing include the use of scaffolds, growth factors, and cell seeding, or a combination of these approaches. Currently, scaffolds derived from mammalian extracellular matrix, synthetic polymers, and a combination thereof, have been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and are marketed as medical devices for rotator cuff repair in humans. Despite the growing clinical use of scaffold devices for rotator cuff repair, there are numerous questions related to their indication, surgical application, safety, mechanism of action, and efficacy that remain to be clarified or addressed. This article reviews the current basic science and clinical understanding of commercially available synthetic and extracellular matrix scaffolds for rotator cuff repair. Our review will emphasize the host response and scaffold remodeling, mechanical and suture-retention properties, and preclinical and clinical studies on the use of these scaffolds for rotator cuff repair. We will discuss the implications of these data on the future directions for use of these scaffolds in tendon repair procedures. Level of evidence: Review Article. (C) 2012 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available