4.6 Article

Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Seeded High-Density Collagen Gel for Annular Repair: 6-Week Results From In Vivo Sheep Models

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 85, 期 2, 页码 E350-E358

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyy523

关键词

Annulus fibrosus; Annular repair; Collagen; Disc; Mesenchymal stem cell; Sheep

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Our group has previously demonstrated in vivo annulus fibrosus repair in animal models using an acellular, riboflavin crosslinked, high-density collagen (HDC) gel. OBJECTIVE: To assess if seeding allogenic mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) into this gel yields improved histological and radiographic benefits in an in vivo sheep model of annular injury. METHODS: Fifteen lumbar intervertebral discs (IVDs) were randomized into 4 groups: intact, injury only, injury + acellular gel treatment, or injury + MSC-seeded gel treatment. Sheep were sacrificed at 6 wk. Disc height index (DHI), Pfirrmann grade, nucleus pulposus area, and T2 relaxation time (T2-RT) were calculated for each IVD and standardized to healthy controls from the same sheep. Quantitative histological assessment was also performed using the Han scoring system. RESULTS: All treated IVDs retained gel plugs on gross assessment and there were no adverse perioperative complications. The MSC-seeded gel treatment group demonstrated statistically significant improvement over other experimental groups in DHI (P = .002), Pfirrmann grade (P < .001), and T2-RT (P = .015). There was a trend for greater Han scores in the MSC-seeded gel-treated discs compared with injury only and acellular gel-treated IVDs (P = .246). CONCLUSION: MSC-seeded HDC gel can be delivered into injured IVDs and maintained safely in live sheep to 6 wk. Compared with no treatment and acellular HDC gel, our data show that MSC-seeded HDC gel improves outcomes in DHI, Pfirrmann grade, and T2-RT. Histological analysis shows improved annulus fibrosus and nucleus pulposus reconstitution and organization over other experimental groups as well.

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

4.6
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