4.5 Article

Transplantation of chondrocytes seeded on collagen-based scaffold in cartilage defects in rabbits

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 75A, Issue 3, Pages 612-622

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.30471

Keywords

autologous chondrocytes; biomaterial-seeded cells; cartilage defects; rabbit

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent success in tissue engineering by restoring cartilage defects by transplanting autologous chondrocyte cells on a three-dimensional scaffold has prompted the improvement of this therapeutic strategy. Here we describe a new approach investigating the healing of rabbit cartilage by means of autologous chondrocytes seeded on a biomaterial made of an equine collagen type I-based scaffold. Full-thickness defects were created bilaterally in the weight-bearing surface of the medial femoral condyle of both femora of New Zealand male rabbits. The wounds were then repaired by using both chondrocytes seeded on the biomaterial and biomaterial alone. Controls were similarly treated but received either no treatment or implants of the delivery substance. Histological examination of the reconstructed tissues at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after transplantation showed that at 1 and 3 months there was no formation of reconstructed tissue in any of the groups evaluated; after 6 months there was evidence of a newly regenerated tissue with some fibrocartilaginous features only in the group treated with biomaterial-seeded cells, and at 12 months a more organized tissue was evident in the same group. With regards to the group transplanted with biomaterial alone and the untreated control group, there was no evidence of new tissue production. These results advocate the use of this collagen-based scaffold for further in vivo studies on large size animals and, finally, in human clinical trials for the treatment of knee cartilage defects. (c) 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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