4.6 Article

Increased cellular infiltrate in inflammatory synovia of osteoarthritic knees

期刊

OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 156-162

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1053/joca.2001.0494

关键词

osteoarthritis of the knee; synovitis; cartilage fragment; cellular infiltration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the nature and origin of synovial inflammation in knees with osteoarthritis (OA). Method: Synovial samples were obtained from 21 medial compartmental knee OAs from 19 patients. First, using 11 medial knee synovial samples from 9 patients, a quantitative estimation of synovitis was made with both ordinary and immunohistochemical staining, Second, from the other 10 knees, tissue samples were taken from both the medial and the lateral compartments to quantify cells that infiltrated into the synovium. Medial synovium was immunostained using antibodies to anti-type 11 collagen, CD68, CD2, CD4, CD8, CD15, CD19, CD25, HLA-DR, CD1a and LN5. The lateral synovium was immunostained with anti-type 11 collagen, CD68, HLA-DR and CD4 antibody as a control. Result: Denatured cartilaginous detritus was found captured by synovial lining cells with a strong immunoreactivity to CD68 antibody, and whose phagocytic potential was activated. The number of anti-type II collagen-positive fragments in the medial compartment of the knee was larger than that found in the lateral compartment. Moreover, the population of CD68-positive cells in synovial tissue and HLA-DR-positive cells in the lining layer was larger in the medial compartment than in the lateral compartment. The number of CD4-positive cells (defined as helper/inducer T lymphocytes) was greater in medial synovium than in lateral synovium. Conclusion: Overall, this study strongly supports the concept that the synovitis observed in patients with knee OA might be induced by an immunological mechanism involving, to some extent, a macrophage/helper T cell interaction. (C) 2002 OsteoArthritis Research Society International.

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