4.6 Article

Slow release of bone morphogenetic protein 2 from a gelatin sponge to promote regeneration of tracheal cartilage in a canine model

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2003.08.017

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We investigated whether bone morphogenetic protein 2, released slowly from a gelatin sponge, could induce cartilage regeneration in a canine model of tracheomalacia and evaluated the long-term results. Methods: A 1 x 5-cm gap was made in the anterior cervical trachea by removing 5-cm long strips of 10 sequential cartilagines. In the control group (n = 5), the gaps were left untreated. In the gelatin sponge group (n = 5), a gelatin sponge soaked in a buffer solution was implanted in each defect. In the bone morphogenetic protein group (n = 5), a gelatin sponge soaked in a buffer solution containing 12 mug bone morphogenetic protein 2 was implanted in each defect. Results: Tracheomalacia was observed in the control and gelatin sponge groups but not in the bone morphogenetic protein group. No regenerated cartilage was detected in the control or gelatin sponge groups, even 6 months after surgery. In contrast, regenerated cartilage, which had developed from the host perichondrium, was observed around the stumps of the resected cartilagines in the bone morphogenetic protein group. This regenerated cartilage maintained the integrity of the internal lumen for longer than 6 months. A compressive fracture test revealed that the tracheal cartilage in the bone morphogenetic protein group was significantly more stable than that in the gelatin sponge and control groups (P = .0015 and P = .0001, respectively). Conclusions: In this canine model of tracheomalacia, cartilage regeneration was induced around the stumps of tracheal cartilagines by bone morphogenetic protein 2 released slowly from a gelatin sponge. This regenerated cartilage was not reabsorbed for longer than 6 months and was strong enough to maintain the integrity of the internal lumen of the trachea.

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