4.5 Article

Augmentation of Surgical Angiogenesis in Vascularized Bone Allotransplants with Host-Derived A/V Bundle Implantation, Fibroblast Growth Factor-2, and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Administration

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 8, 页码 1015-1021

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jor.21098

关键词

bone; allotransplantation; microspheres; FGF; VEGF

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AR49718]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have previously shown experimental transplantation of living allogeneic bone to be feasible without long-term immunosuppression by development of a recipient-derived neoangiogenic circulation within bone. In this study, we examine the role of angiogenic cytokine delivery with biodegradable microspheres to enhance this process. Microsurgical femoral allotransplantation was performed from Dark Agouti to Piebald Virol Glaxo rats. Poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) microspheres loaded with buffer, basic fibroblast growth factor (FGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), or both, were inserted intramedullarly along with a recipient-derived arteriovenous (a/v) bundle. FK-506 was administered daily for 14 days, then discontinued. At 28 days, bone blood flow was measured using hydrogen washout. Microangiography, histologic, and histomorphometric analyses were performed. Capillary density was greater in the FGF+VEGF group (35.1%) than control (13.9%) (p<0.05), and a linear trend was found from control, FGF, VEGF, to FGF+VEGF (p<0.005). Bone formation rates were greater with VEGF (p<0.01) and FGF+VEGF (p<0.05). VEGF or FGF alone increased blood flow more than when combined. Histology rejection grading was low in all grafts. Local administration of vascular and fibroblast growth factors augments angiogenesis, bone formation, and bone blood flow from implanted blood vessels of donor origin in vascularized bone allografts after removal of immunosuppression. (C) 2010 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 28:1015-1021, 2010

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