4.0 Article

Autologous chondrocyte implantation with collagen bioscaffold for the treatment of osteochondral defects in rabbits

期刊

TISSUE ENGINEERING
卷 11, 期 7-8, 页码 1065-1076

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.2005.11.1065

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osteochondral injury is therapeutically irreversible within current treatment parameters. Autologous chondrocyte implantation ( ACI) promises to regenerate hyaline articular cartilage, but conventional ACI is plagued by complications determined by periosteal grafting. Here we propose the utilization of collagen membrane in ACI as an effective bioscaffold for the regeneration of osteochondral lesions. Using a rabbit model of osteochondral injury, we have inoculated autologous chondrocytes onto a type I/ III collagen scaffold [ so- called matrix- induced ACI ( MACI)] and implanted into 3- mm osteochondral knee defects. All untreated defect histology showed inferior fibrocartilage and/ or fibrous tissue repair. In our time- course study, ACI with type I/ III collagen membrane regenerated cartilage with healthy osteochondral architecture in osteochondral defects at 6 weeks. At 12 weeks, articular cartilage regeneration was maintained, with reduced thickness and proteoglycan compared with the adjacent cartilage. Both 6- week ( p < 0.01) and 12- week ( p < 0.05) ACI with collagen membrane showed significant improvement as compared with untreated controls. To further examine the efficacy of cartilage regeneration by ACI, we conducted a dose - response study, using chondrocytes at various cell densities between 10(4) and 10(6) cells/ cm(2). The results showed that cell density had no effect on outcome histology, but all cell densities were significantly better than untreated controls ( p < 0.01) and cell- free collagen membrane treatment ( p < 0.05). In short, our data suggest that autologous chondrocyte- seeded type I/ III collagen membrane is an effective method for the treatment of focal osteochondral knee injury in rabbits.

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

4.0
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