4.6 Article

Functional Restoration of Critically Sized Segmental Defects With Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 and Heparin Treatment

期刊

CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH
卷 469, 期 11, 页码 3111-3117

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2012-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01-AR056694, R01-AR051336]
  2. NSF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bone defects and fracture nonunions remain a substantial challenge for clinicians. Grafting procedures are limited by insufficient volume and donor site morbidity. As an alternative, biomaterial scaffolds functionalized through incorporation of growth factors such as bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) have been developed and appear to regenerate the structure and function of damaged or degenerated skeletal tissue. Our objectives were therefore to determine whether: (1) the addition of heparin alone to collagen scaffolds sufficed to promote bone formation in vivo; (2) collagen-heparin scaffold improved BMP-mediated bone regeneration; and (3) precomplexed heparin and BMP-2 delivered on collagen scaffold could restore long bone biomechanical strength. We created bilateral surgical defects in the femora of 20 rats and filled the defects with PCL scaffolds with one of five treatments: collagen matrix (n = 5), collagen/heparin matrix (n = 7), collagen matrix + BMP-2 (n = 9), collagen/heparin matrix + BMP-2 (n = 9), or collagen matrix + BMP-2/heparin complex (n = 9). Bone formation was observed with radiographs and micro-CT analysis and biomechanical testing was used to assess strength. The addition of heparin alone to collagen did not promote bone ingrowth and the addition of heparin to collagen did not improve BMP-mediated bone regeneration. Delivery of precomplexed BMP-2 and heparin in a collagen matrix resulted in new bone formation with mechanical properties similar to those of intact bone. Our findings suggest delivery of precomplexed BMP-2 and heparin may be an advantageous strategy for treatment of clinically challenging bone 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

4.6
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