Lan Xu, Yang Zhiming, Luo Jingcong, Li Xiuqun, Qin Tingwu
Division of Stem Cell and Tissue Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, PR China.
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2005 Feb;19(2):95-9.
To study the difference of repairing segmental bone defect with bio-derived bone preserved by various methods.
Freeze-dried biomaterials had been stored in two different preservation solutions for three months, while the biomaterials stored for same period were observed as control group. The experimental model of 15 mm radial segmental defect was made in 60 New Zealand white rabbits, which were divided into groups A, B and C according to transplant materials preserved by various methods. Groups A and B were deeply divided into A1 and A2 subgroups, B1 and B2 subgroups according to whether materials were cocultured with osteoblasts. Tissue engineered bone was used to repair bone defects of left limbs in A1 and B1 subgroups, while simple material to repair defects of right limbs in A2 and B2 subgroups. Group C was divided into C1 and C2 subgroups. Freeze-dried material was used to repair bone defects of the left limbs, while defects of the right limbs as blank control group. The samples were harvested and observed by the roentgenographical, histomorphological, biomechanical and computerized graphical analysis at 4, 8 and 16 weeks.
All of the defects treated with implants exhibited new bone formation 4, 8 and 16 weeks postoperatively, increasing with time. The radiological, histomorphological and biomechanical evaluation showed that the ability of new bone formation was arranged in 6 subgroups as follows: A1>A2>C1>B1>B2>C2, the difference was significant between them (P<0.001, P<0.05). The ability of new bone formation was strongest and at 16 weeks the defect was bridged with the appearance of marrow cavities in A1 subgroup, the biomechanical properties in implants approached to those of normal bone.
The choice of proper preservation solution can improve the ability of repairing bone defect.
研究不同方法保存的生物衍生骨修复节段性骨缺损的差异。
将冻干生物材料分别置于两种不同的保存液中保存3个月,同期保存的生物材料作为对照组。选取60只新西兰白兔制作15 mm桡骨节段性缺损实验模型,根据不同保存方法的移植材料分为A、B、C组。A、B组再根据材料是否与成骨细胞共培养分为A1、A2亚组和B1、B2亚组。A1、B1亚组采用组织工程骨修复左下肢骨缺损,A2、B2亚组采用单纯材料修复右下肢骨缺损。C组分为C1、C2亚组,C1亚组采用冻干材料修复左下肢骨缺损,C2亚组右下肢缺损作为空白对照组。分别于术后4、8、16周取材,进行X线、组织形态学、生物力学及计算机图像分析观察。
所有植入物治疗的缺损在术后4、8、16周均有新骨形成,且随时间增加。影像学、组织形态学及生物力学评价显示,6个亚组的新骨形成能力依次为:A1>A2>C1>B1>B2>C2,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001,P<0.05)。A1亚组新骨形成能力最强,16周时缺损被桥接,出现骨髓腔,植入物的生物力学性能接近正常骨。
选择合适的保存液可提高骨缺损的修复能力。