4.5 Article

A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF GLUCOSAMINE SULPHATE AND CHONDROITIN SULPHATE ON SURGICALLY TREATED AND UNTREATED FOCAL CARTILAGE DAMAGE

期刊

EUROPEAN CELLS & MATERIALS
卷 21, 期 -, 页码 259-271

出版社

AO RESEARCH INSTITUTE DAVOS-ARI
DOI: 10.22203/eCM.v021a20

关键词

Animal models; cartilage repair; chondrocytes; collagens; proteoglycans

资金

  1. University Malaya - Vote F research grant/IRPA Research grant under the 8<SUP>th</SUP> Malaysian Plan [F0136/2005B, 36-02-03-6037/Oracle 8301037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of Glucosamine Sulphate (GS) and Chondroitin Sulphate (CS) on the healing of damaged and repaired articular cartilage were investigated. This study was conducted using 18 New Zealand white rabbits as experimental models. Focal cartilage defects, surgically created in the medial femoral condyle, were either treated by means of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) or left untreated as controls. Rabbits were then divided into groups which received either GS+/-CS or no pharmacotherapy. Three rabbits from each group were sacrificed at 12 and 24 weeks post-surgery. Knees dissected from rabbits were then evaluated using gross quantification of repair tissue, glycosaminoglycan (GAG) assays, immunoassays and histological assessments. It was observed that, in contrast to untreated sites, surfaces of the ACI-repaired sites appeared smooth and continuous with the surrounding native cartilage. Histological examination demonstrated a typical hyaline cartilage structure; with proteoglycans, type II collagen and GAGs being highly expressed in repair areas. The improved regeneration of these repair sites was also noted to be significant over time (6 months vs. 3 months) and in GS and GS+CS groups compared to the untreated (without pharmacotherapy) group. Combination of ACI and pharmacotherapy (with glucosamine sulphate alone/ or with chondroitin sulphate) may prove beneficial for healing of damaged cartilage, particularly in relation to focal cartilage defects.

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

4.5
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