Schagemann Jan C, Rudert Nicola, Taylor Michelle E, Sim Sotcheadt, Quenneville Eric, Garon Martin, Klinger Mathias, Buschmann Michael D, Mittelstaedt Hagen
University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Clinic for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Lübeck, Germany; Mayo Clinic, Orthopedic Surgery, Rochester, MN, USA.
University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Clinic for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Lübeck, Germany.
Cartilage. 2016 Oct;7(4):346-60. doi: 10.1177/1947603515623992. Epub 2016 Jan 22.
To compare the regenerative capacity of 2 distinct bilayer implants for the restoration of osteochondral defects in a preliminary sheep model.
Critical sized osteochondral defects were treated with a novel biomimetic poly-ε-caprolactone (PCL) implant (Treatment No. 2; n = 6) or a combination of Chondro-Gide and Orthoss (Treatment No. 1; n = 6). At 19 months postoperation, repair tissue (n = 5 each) was analyzed for histology and biochemistry. Electromechanical mappings (Arthro-BST) were performed ex vivo.
Histological scores, electromechanical quantitative parameter values, dsDNA and sGAG contents measured at the repair sites were statistically lower than those obtained from the contralateral surfaces. Electromechanical mappings and higher dsDNA and sGAG/weight levels indicated better regeneration for Treatment No. 1. However, these differences were not significant. For both treatments, Arthro-BST revealed early signs of degeneration of the cartilage surrounding the repair site. The International Cartilage Repair Society II histological scores of the repair tissue were significantly higher for Treatment No. 1 (10.3 ± 0.38 SE) compared to Treatment No. 2 (8.7 ± 0.45 SE). The parameters cell morphology and vascularization scored highest whereas tidemark formation scored the lowest.
There was cell infiltration and regeneration of bone and cartilage. However, repair was incomplete and fibrocartilaginous. There were no significant differences in the quality of regeneration between the treatments except in some histological scoring categories. The results from Arthro-BST measurements were comparable to traditional invasive/destructive methods of measuring quality of cartilage repair.
在初步的绵羊模型中比较两种不同双层植入物修复骨软骨缺损的再生能力。
用新型仿生聚己内酯(PCL)植入物(治疗2组;n = 6)或Chondro - Gide和Orthoss组合(治疗1组;n = 6)治疗临界尺寸的骨软骨缺损。术后19个月,对修复组织(每组n = 5)进行组织学和生物化学分析。离体进行机电映射(Arthro - BST)。
修复部位测量的组织学评分、机电定量参数值、双链DNA(dsDNA)和硫酸糖胺聚糖(sGAG)含量在统计学上低于对侧表面获得的值。机电映射以及较高的dsDNA和sGAG/重量水平表明治疗1组的再生效果更好。然而,这些差异并不显著。对于两种治疗,Arthro - BST均显示修复部位周围软骨有早期退变迹象。与治疗2组(8.7 ± 0.45标准误)相比,治疗1组修复组织的国际软骨修复协会II组织学评分显著更高(10.3 ± 0.38标准误)。细胞形态和血管化参数得分最高,而潮线形成得分最低。
存在骨和软骨的细胞浸润及再生。然而,修复不完全且为纤维软骨。除了一些组织学评分类别外,两种治疗的再生质量没有显著差异。Arthro - BST测量结果与测量软骨修复质量的传统侵入性/破坏性方法相当。