BACKGROUND: In osteochondral defects, subchondral bone, as a load-bearing structure, is believed to be important for bone and cartilage regeneration. HYPOTHESIS: A stiff scaffold creates better conditions for bone formation and cartilage regeneration than does a softer one. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Critical osteochondral defects were created in the femoral condyles of 24 sheep. Subchondral bone was reconstructed with a stiff scaffold or a modified softer one, with untreated defects serving as controls. The repair response was evaluated with mechanical, histological, and histomorphometrical techniques at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The elastic modulus of regenerated fibrocartilage over the stiff scaffold tended to be higher than in the soft scaffold group (61% vs 46% of healthy cartilage) at 3 months. No difference was determined at 6 months; all were well below healthy cartilage. Treated defects showed substantial degradation of the soft scaffold with surrounding sclerotic bone at 3 and 6 months. In contrast, degradation of the stiff scaffold was slower and occurred together with continuous osseous replacement. CONCLUSION: Stiff scaffolds were found to improve bone regeneration. In contrast, soft scaffolds provided less support, and consequently subchondral bone became sclerotic. Although regenerated cartilage formed over the stiff scaffolds at 3 months, and these exhibited better mechanical properties than did the soft scaffold group, the mechanical properties in both treated groups were the same at 6 months, not dissimilar to that of tissue formed in the untreated specimens and inferior to native articular cartilage. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results imply that subchondral defect filling in clinical settings advances bone regeneration and should have a comparable stiffness to that of healthy subchondral bone rather than being too flexible. Degradation of resorbable materials and consequently the loss of stiffness may compromise the healing of critical defects.
BACKGROUND: In osteochondral defects, subchondral bone, as a load-bearing structure, is believed to be important for bone and cartilage regeneration. HYPOTHESIS: A stiff scaffold creates better conditions for bone formation and cartilage regeneration than does a softer one. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS:Critical osteochondral defects were created in the femoral condyles of 24 sheep. Subchondral bone was reconstructed with a stiff scaffold or a modified softer one, with untreated defects serving as controls. The repair response was evaluated with mechanical, histological, and histomorphometrical techniques at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The elastic modulus of regenerated fibrocartilage over the stiff scaffold tended to be higher than in the soft scaffold group (61% vs 46% of healthy cartilage) at 3 months. No difference was determined at 6 months; all were well below healthy cartilage. Treated defects showed substantial degradation of the soft scaffold with surrounding sclerotic bone at 3 and 6 months. In contrast, degradation of the stiff scaffold was slower and occurred together with continuous osseous replacement. CONCLUSION: Stiff scaffolds were found to improve bone regeneration. In contrast, soft scaffolds provided less support, and consequently subchondral bone became sclerotic. Although regenerated cartilage formed over the stiff scaffolds at 3 months, and these exhibited better mechanical properties than did the soft scaffold group, the mechanical properties in both treated groups were the same at 6 months, not dissimilar to that of tissue formed in the untreated specimens and inferior to native articular cartilage. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results imply that subchondral defect filling in clinical settings advances bone regeneration and should have a comparable stiffness to that of healthy subchondral bone rather than being too flexible. Degradation of resorbable materials and consequently the loss of stiffness may compromise the healing of critical defects.
Authors: Deva D Chan; Luyao Cai; Kent D Butz; Eric A Nauman; Darryl A Dickerson; Ilse Jonkers; Corey P Neu Journal: J Biomech Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Jin-Hyung Shim; Se Eun Kim; Ju Young Park; Joydip Kundu; Sung Won Kim; Seong Soo Kang; Dong-Woo Cho Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Markus T Berninger; Gabriele Wexel; Ernst J Rummeny; Andreas B Imhoff; Martina Anton; Tobias D Henning; Stephan Vogt Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 1.355