Limits...
Cell-Laden and Cell-Free Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis versus Microfracture for the Treatment of Articular Cartilage Defects: A Histological and Biomechanical Study in Sheep.

Gille J, Kunow J, Boisch L, Behrens P, Bos I, Hoffmann C, Köller W, Russlies M, Kurz B - Cartilage (2010)

Bottom Line: However, none of the index procedures surpassed the others from a biomechanical point of view or based on the histological scoring.Collagen type II expression was better in condylar defects compared to the trochlea, especially in those treated with collagen I/III membranes.However, it failed to improve the biomechanical and histological properties of regenerated articular cartilage compared to microfracture alone in an ovine model under the given circumstances.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Germany.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the regenerative potential of cell-laden and cell-free collagen matrices in comparison to microfracture treatment applied to full-thickness chondral defects in an ovine model.

Methods: Animals (n = 30) were randomized into 5 treatment groups, and 7-mm full-cartilage-thickness defects were set at the trochlea and medial condyle of both knee joints and treated as follows: 2 scaffolds in comparison (collagen I/III, Chondro-Gide(®); collagen II, Chondrocell(®)) for covering microfractured defects (autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis), both scaffolds colonized in vitro with autologous chondrocytes (matrix-associated chondrocyte transplantation), or scaffold-free microfracture technique. One year after surgery, cartilage lesions were biomechanically (indentation test), histologically (O'Driscoll score), and immunohistochemically (collagen type I and II staining) evaluated.

Results: All treatment groups of the animal model induced more repair tissue and showed better histological scores and biomechanical properties compared to controls. The average thickness of the repair tissue was significantly greater when a scaffold was used, especially the collagen I/III membrane. However, none of the index procedures surpassed the others from a biomechanical point of view or based on the histological scoring. Collagen type II expression was better in condylar defects compared to the trochlea, especially in those treated with collagen I/III membranes.

Conclusion: Covering of defects with suitable matrices promotes repair tissue formation and is suggested to be a promising treatment option for cartilage defects. However, it failed to improve the biomechanical and histological properties of regenerated articular cartilage compared to microfracture alone in an ovine model under the given circumstances.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Experimental setup for biomechanical testing. Specimens were fixed with 4 screws onto the lifting platform, which allowed free motion, permitting precise alignment of the 4-mm-diameter ball indenter perpendicular to the test surface.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4440609&req=5

fig1-1947603509358721: Experimental setup for biomechanical testing. Specimens were fixed with 4 screws onto the lifting platform, which allowed free motion, permitting precise alignment of the 4-mm-diameter ball indenter perpendicular to the test surface.

Mentions: The prepared knee was fixed with 4 screws onto the lifting platform, which allowed free motion, permitting precise alignment of the 4-mm-diameter ball indenter perpendicular to the test surface, as shown in Figure 1. Data were collected by DIADEM (National Instruments, Austin, TX). Within 0.2 s after release of the adjustment, a constant force of 0.8 N was applied, and displacement was recorded continuously for 35 s. The integrated force sensor ensured that no predeformation of cartilage took place. The indentation data were evaluated using start deformation and 25-s creep indentation, considering cartilage thickness to determine the 25-s creeping index and the Elastic Modulus E (Young’s modulus), a measure of the stiffness of a given material, as parameters. It is defined as the ratio of the rate of change of stress with strain. The measurement was repeated twice at an interval of 10 min to allow the cartilage to recover. The tissue was moistened with 0.9% NaCl solution throughout the biomechanical testing to avoid any tissue damage. Data smaller than 0.02 (25-s creeping index) and more than 15 Mpa (Young’s modulus) were excluded from statistical analysis.22 Immediately after biomechanical investigation, specimens were processed for histology by fixation in 4% buffered formalin.


Cell-Laden and Cell-Free Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis versus Microfracture for the Treatment of Articular Cartilage Defects: A Histological and Biomechanical Study in Sheep.

Gille J, Kunow J, Boisch L, Behrens P, Bos I, Hoffmann C, Köller W, Russlies M, Kurz B - Cartilage (2010)

Experimental setup for biomechanical testing. Specimens were fixed with 4 screws onto the lifting platform, which allowed free motion, permitting precise alignment of the 4-mm-diameter ball indenter perpendicular to the test surface.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4440609&req=5

fig1-1947603509358721: Experimental setup for biomechanical testing. Specimens were fixed with 4 screws onto the lifting platform, which allowed free motion, permitting precise alignment of the 4-mm-diameter ball indenter perpendicular to the test surface.
Mentions: The prepared knee was fixed with 4 screws onto the lifting platform, which allowed free motion, permitting precise alignment of the 4-mm-diameter ball indenter perpendicular to the test surface, as shown in Figure 1. Data were collected by DIADEM (National Instruments, Austin, TX). Within 0.2 s after release of the adjustment, a constant force of 0.8 N was applied, and displacement was recorded continuously for 35 s. The integrated force sensor ensured that no predeformation of cartilage took place. The indentation data were evaluated using start deformation and 25-s creep indentation, considering cartilage thickness to determine the 25-s creeping index and the Elastic Modulus E (Young’s modulus), a measure of the stiffness of a given material, as parameters. It is defined as the ratio of the rate of change of stress with strain. The measurement was repeated twice at an interval of 10 min to allow the cartilage to recover. The tissue was moistened with 0.9% NaCl solution throughout the biomechanical testing to avoid any tissue damage. Data smaller than 0.02 (25-s creeping index) and more than 15 Mpa (Young’s modulus) were excluded from statistical analysis.22 Immediately after biomechanical investigation, specimens were processed for histology by fixation in 4% buffered formalin.

Bottom Line: However, none of the index procedures surpassed the others from a biomechanical point of view or based on the histological scoring.Collagen type II expression was better in condylar defects compared to the trochlea, especially in those treated with collagen I/III membranes.However, it failed to improve the biomechanical and histological properties of regenerated articular cartilage compared to microfracture alone in an ovine model under the given circumstances.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Germany.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the regenerative potential of cell-laden and cell-free collagen matrices in comparison to microfracture treatment applied to full-thickness chondral defects in an ovine model.

Methods: Animals (n = 30) were randomized into 5 treatment groups, and 7-mm full-cartilage-thickness defects were set at the trochlea and medial condyle of both knee joints and treated as follows: 2 scaffolds in comparison (collagen I/III, Chondro-Gide(®); collagen II, Chondrocell(®)) for covering microfractured defects (autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis), both scaffolds colonized in vitro with autologous chondrocytes (matrix-associated chondrocyte transplantation), or scaffold-free microfracture technique. One year after surgery, cartilage lesions were biomechanically (indentation test), histologically (O'Driscoll score), and immunohistochemically (collagen type I and II staining) evaluated.

Results: All treatment groups of the animal model induced more repair tissue and showed better histological scores and biomechanical properties compared to controls. The average thickness of the repair tissue was significantly greater when a scaffold was used, especially the collagen I/III membrane. However, none of the index procedures surpassed the others from a biomechanical point of view or based on the histological scoring. Collagen type II expression was better in condylar defects compared to the trochlea, especially in those treated with collagen I/III membranes.

Conclusion: Covering of defects with suitable matrices promotes repair tissue formation and is suggested to be a promising treatment option for cartilage defects. However, it failed to improve the biomechanical and histological properties of regenerated articular cartilage compared to microfracture alone in an ovine model under the given circumstances.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus