PURPOSE: Bupivacaine, ropivacaine, and morphine are commonly administered intraarticularly after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, their effects on human tendon stem/progenitor cells (TSPC) have not been studied. Therefore, this study investigates the cytotoxicity of these analgetics on TSPC. METHODS: Cells were isolated from human hamstring grafts of 3 female (age 15, 16 and 59) and 2 male patients (age 16 and 47). Cells were incubated using 0.5% bupivacaine, 0.5/0.75% ropivacaine, and 0.025% morphine. Cell viability was assessed after 0.5, 2, and 6 h using live/dead assay. Metabolic activity and apoptosis were measured by WST- and Annexin-V-FACS-assay after 2 h. RESULTS: Cell viability remained unchanged after 0.5 h in all groups, while treatment with bupivacaine and 0.5/0.75% ropivacaine resulted in a complete cell loss after 6 h. Contrarily, morphine showed no cytotoxic effect. Cell viability and metabolism were significantly reduced after treatment with bupivacaine (22.1; 8.3%) and 0.75% ropivacaine (56.5; 23.8%), while 0.5% ropivacaine and morphine showed no significant difference compared with controls. Apoptosis was significantly induced after incubation with bupivacaine (58.1%) and 0.75% ropivacaine (26.2%), whereas 0.5% ropivacaine only led to a slight induction compared with morphine and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically administered concentrations of bupivacaine (0.5%) and ropivacaine (0.75%) have a significant cytotoxic effect on human TSPC in vitro, while ropivacaine in a concentration of 0.5% has a mild but not significant effect on apoptosis and cell metabolism. In contrast, morphine does not affect cell survival, metabolism, or apoptosis. Knowing that morphine provides comparable to even prolonged pain reduction after ACL reconstruction, the presented in vitro study suggests morphine as a potentially less toxic analgetic drug for intraarticular application in clinical practice.
PURPOSE:Bupivacaine, ropivacaine, and morphine are commonly administered intraarticularly after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, their effects on human tendon stem/progenitor cells (TSPC) have not been studied. Therefore, this study investigates the cytotoxicity of these analgetics on TSPC. METHODS: Cells were isolated from human hamstring grafts of 3 female (age 15, 16 and 59) and 2 male patients (age 16 and 47). Cells were incubated using 0.5% bupivacaine, 0.5/0.75% ropivacaine, and 0.025% morphine. Cell viability was assessed after 0.5, 2, and 6 h using live/dead assay. Metabolic activity and apoptosis were measured by WST- and Annexin-V-FACS-assay after 2 h. RESULTS: Cell viability remained unchanged after 0.5 h in all groups, while treatment with bupivacaine and 0.5/0.75% ropivacaine resulted in a complete cell loss after 6 h. Contrarily, morphine showed no cytotoxic effect. Cell viability and metabolism were significantly reduced after treatment with bupivacaine (22.1; 8.3%) and 0.75% ropivacaine (56.5; 23.8%), while 0.5% ropivacaine and morphine showed no significant difference compared with controls. Apoptosis was significantly induced after incubation with bupivacaine (58.1%) and 0.75% ropivacaine (26.2%), whereas 0.5% ropivacaine only led to a slight induction compared with morphine and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically administered concentrations of bupivacaine (0.5%) and ropivacaine (0.75%) have a significant cytotoxic effect on human TSPC in vitro, while ropivacaine in a concentration of 0.5% has a mild but not significant effect on apoptosis and cell metabolism. In contrast, morphine does not affect cell survival, metabolism, or apoptosis. Knowing that morphine provides comparable to even prolonged pain reduction after ACL reconstruction, the presented in vitro study suggests morphine as a potentially less toxic analgetic drug for intraarticular application in clinical practice.
Authors: Elias Volkmer; Inga Drosse; Sven Otto; Achim Stangelmayer; Michael Stengele; Bobby Cherian Kallukalam; Wolf Mutschler; Matthias Schieker Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: John W Jaureguito; Joseph F Wilcox; Ronald A Thisted; Craig Phillips; Benjamin Cunningham; Bruce Reider Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2002 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Hai Nie; Eva Kubrova; Tao Wu; Janet M Denbeigh; Christine Hunt; Allan B Dietz; Jay Smith; Wenchun Qu; Andre J van Wijnen Journal: PM R Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Julia Kohler; Cvetan Popov; Barbara Klotz; Paolo Alberton; Wolf Christian Prall; Florian Haasters; Sigrid Müller-Deubert; Regina Ebert; Ludger Klein-Hitpass; Franz Jakob; Matthias Schieker; Denitsa Docheva Journal: Aging Cell Date: 2013-07-22 Impact factor: 9.304
Authors: Andreas Ficklscherer; Birte Sievers; Julia Redeker; Mehmet F Gülecyüz; Alexander Paulus; Matthias F Pietschmann; Peter E Müller Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2013-05-27 Impact factor: 3.318