4.5 Article

Biphasic scaffolds for repair of deep osteochondral defects in a sheep model

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 183, 期 1, 页码 184-192

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2012.11.036

关键词

Osteochondral defect; Biphasic scaffold; Autologous chondrocytes; Osseous integration; Cartilage regeneration

类别

资金

  1. [BMBF FKZ 0312757B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: To oppose the disadvantages of autologous osteochondral transplantation in the treatment of deep osteochondral defects such as donor site morbidity, size limitation, and insufficient chondral integration, we developed two biphasic scaffolds of either hydroxylapatite/collagen (scaffold A) or allogenous sterilized bone/collagen (scaffold B) and tested their integration in a sheep model. Methods: We collected chondral biopsies from 12 sheep for the isolation of chondroblasts and cultured them for 4 wk. We created defects at the femoral condyle and implanted either scaffold A or B with chondrocytes or cell free. After 6 wk, animals were euthanized, we explanted the condyles, and evaluated them using histological, immunohistochemical, molecular biological, and histomorphometrical methods. Results: Specimens with scaffold A showed severe lowering of the surface, and the defect size was larger than for scaffold B. We found more immune-competent cells around scaffold A. Chondrocytes were scarcely detected on the surface of both scaffolds. Histomorphometry of the interface between scaffold and recipient showed no significant difference regarding tissue of chondral, osseous, fibrous or implant origin or tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase-positive cells. Real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction analysis revealed significant up-regulation for collagen II and SOX-9 messenger ribonucleic acid expression on the surface of scaffold B compared with scaffold A. Conclusions: Scaffold B proved to be stable and sufficiently integrated in the short term compared with scaffold A. More extensive evaluations with scaffold B appear to be expedient. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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