4.5 Article

Coefficients of friction, lubricin, and cartilage damage in the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient guinea pig knee

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 231-237

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jor.20492

关键词

ACL; injury; cartilage; osteoarthritis; friction; lubrication

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR050180, R01 AR049199-03, R01 AR049199, R01 AR047910, R01 AR050180, R01 AR049199-04, AR047910S1, AR047910, R01 AR049199-05, AR049199] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The coefficient of friction (COF) of articular cartilage is thought to increase with osteoarthritis (OA) progression, and this increase may occur due to a decrease in lubricin concentration. The objectives of this study were to measure the COF of guinea pig tibiofemoral joints with different stages of CA and to establish relationships between COF, lubricin concentrations in synovial fluid, and degradation status using the Hartley guinea pig model. Both hind limbs from 24 animals were harvested: seven 3-month-old (no OA), seven 12-month-old (mild OA), and 10 thatwere euthanized at 12 months of age after undergoing unilateral ACL transection at 3 months of age (moderate OA). Contralateral knees served as age-matched controls. COFs of the tibiofemoral joints were measured using a pendulum apparatus. Synovial fluid lavages were analyzed to determine the concentration and integrity of lubricin using ELISA and Western blot, and the overall articular cartilage status was evaluated by histology. The results showed that the mean COF in the ACL-deficient knees was significantly greater than that of the no OA (P < 0.01) and mild OA knees (p < 0.01). Lubricin concentrations in the ACL-deficient knees were significantly lower than that in both of the other groups (p < 0.01). No significant differences in COF or lubricin concentration were found between the no OA and mild OA knees. Histology verified the extent of cartilage damage in each group. (c) 2007 Orthopaedic Research Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据