4.5 Review

The Pathology of Orthopedic Implant Failure Is Mediated by Innate Immune System Cytokines

期刊

MEDIATORS OF INFLAMMATION
卷 2014, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2014/185150

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES [R01AR060782] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR060782] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

All of the over 1 million total joint replacements implanted in the US each year are expected to eventually fail after 15-25 years of use, due to slow progressive subtle inflammation at the bone implant interface. This inflammatory disease state is caused by implant debris acting, primarily, on innate immune cells, that is, macrophages. This slow progressive pathological bone loss or aseptic loosening is a potentially life-threatening condition due to the serious complications in older people (>75 yrs) of total joint replacement revision surgery. In some people implant debris (particles and ions from metals) can influence the adaptive immune system as well, giving rise to the concept of metal sensitivity. However, a consensus of studies agrees that the dominant form of this response is due to innate reactivity by macrophages to implant debris where both danger (DAMP) and pathogen (PAMP) signalling elicit cytokine-based inflammatory responses. This paper discusses implant debris induced release of the cytokines and chemokines due to activation of the innate (and the adaptive) immune system and the subsequent formation of osteolysis. Different mechanisms of implant-debris reactivity related to the innate immune system are detailed, for example, danger signalling (e.g., IL-1 beta, IL-18, IL-33, etc.), toll-like receptor activation (e.g., IL-6, TNF-alpha, etc.), apoptosis (e.g., caspases 3-9), bone catabolism (e.g., TRAP5b), and hypoxia responses (Hif1-alpha). Cytokine-based clinical and basic science studies are in progress to provide diagnosis and therapeutic intervention strategies.

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