4.2 Article

Evaluation of Polycaprolactone Scaffold with Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor and Fibroblasts in an Athymic Rat Model for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

期刊

TISSUE ENGINEERING PART A
卷 21, 期 11-12, 页码 1859-1868

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.tea.2014.0366

关键词

-

资金

  1. OREF Clinician Scientist Training Grant
  2. H H Lee Surgical Research Grant
  3. Veterans Administration BLRD Merit Review [1 I01 BX00012601]
  4. Musculoskeletal Transplantation Foundation Young Investigator Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common ligamentous injury often necessitating surgery. Current surgical treatment options include ligament reconstruction with autograft or allograft, which have their inherent limitations. Thus, there is interest in a tissue-engineered substitute for use in ACL regeneration. However, there have been relatively few in vivo studies to date. In this study, an athymic rat model of ACL reconstruction was used to evaluate electrospun polycaprolactone (PCL) grafts, with and without the addition of basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) and human foreskin fibroblasts. We examined the regenerative potential of tissue-engineered ACL grafts using histology, immunohistochemistry, and mechanical testing up to 16 weeks postoperatively. Histology showed infiltration of the grafts with cells, and immunohistochemistry demonstrated aligned collagen deposition with minimal inflammatory reaction. Mechanical testing of the grafts demonstrated significantly higher mechanical properties than immediately postimplantation. Acellular grafts loaded with bFGF achieved 58.8% of the stiffness and 40.7% of the peak load of healthy native ACL. Grafts without bFGF achieved 31.3% of the stiffness and 28.2% of the peak load of healthy native ACL. In this in vivo rodent model study for ACL reconstruction, the histological and mechanical evaluation demonstrated excellent healing and regenerative potential of our electrospun PCL ligament graft.

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

4.2
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