David D Frisbie1, Helen E McCarthy2, Charles W Archer3, Myra F Barrett1, C Wayne McIlwraith1. 1. Orthopaedic Research Center, Department of Clinical Sciences (D.D.F. and C.W.M.), and Department of Radiological and Health Sciences (M.F.B.), College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, 300 West Drake Road, Fort Collins, CO 80523. E-mail address for D.D. Frisbie: david.frisbie@colostate.edu. 2. Division of Pathophysiology and Repair, Cardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Sir Martin Evans Building, Museum Avenue, Cardiff, CF10 3AX, United Kingdom. 3. Institute of Life Sciences, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the effectiveness of chondroprogenitor cells derived from autologous and allogenic articular cartilage for the repair of cartilage defects in an equine model. METHODS: Cartilage defects (15 mm) were created on the medial trochlear ridge of the femur. The following experimental treatments were compared with empty-defect controls: fibrin only, autologous chondroprogenitor cells plus fibrin, and allogenic chondroprogenitor cells plus fibrin (n = 4 or 12 per treatment). Horses underwent strenuous exercise throughout the twelve-month study, and evaluations included lameness (pain) and arthroscopic, radiographic, gross, histologic, and immunohistochemical analyses. RESULTS: Arthroscopy and microscopy indicated that defects in the autologous cell group had significantly better repair tissue compared with defects in the fibrin-only and control groups. Repair tissue quality in the allogenic cell group was not superior to that in the fibrin-only group with the exception of the percentage of type-II collagen, which was greater. Radiographic changes in the allogenic cell group were poorer on average than those in the autologous cell group. Autologous cells significantly reduced central osteophyte formation compared with fibrin alone. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the arthroscopic, radiographic, and histologic scores, autologous cells in fibrin yielded better results than the other treatments; allogenic cells cannot be recommended at this time.
BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the effectiveness of chondroprogenitor cells derived from autologous and allogenic articular cartilage for the repair of cartilage defects in an equine model. METHODS:Cartilage defects (15 mm) were created on the medial trochlear ridge of the femur. The following experimental treatments were compared with empty-defect controls: fibrin only, autologous chondroprogenitor cells plus fibrin, and allogenic chondroprogenitor cells plus fibrin (n = 4 or 12 per treatment). Horses underwent strenuous exercise throughout the twelve-month study, and evaluations included lameness (pain) and arthroscopic, radiographic, gross, histologic, and immunohistochemical analyses. RESULTS: Arthroscopy and microscopy indicated that defects in the autologous cell group had significantly better repair tissue compared with defects in the fibrin-only and control groups. Repair tissue quality in the allogenic cell group was not superior to that in the fibrin-only group with the exception of the percentage of type-II collagen, which was greater. Radiographic changes in the allogenic cell group were poorer on average than those in the autologous cell group. Autologous cells significantly reduced central osteophyte formation compared with fibrin alone. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the arthroscopic, radiographic, and histologic scores, autologous cells in fibrin yielded better results than the other treatments; allogenic cells cannot be recommended at this time.
Authors: Riccardo Levato; William R Webb; Iris A Otto; Anneloes Mensinga; Yadan Zhang; Mattie van Rijen; René van Weeren; Ilyas M Khan; Jos Malda Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Devon E Anderson; Brandon D Markway; Kenneth J Weekes; Helen E McCarthy; Brian Johnstone Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Laurie R Goodrich; Albert C Chen; Natasha M Werpy; Ashley A Williams; John D Kisiday; Alvin W Su; Esther Cory; Paul S Morley; C Wayne McIlwraith; Robert L Sah; Constance R Chu Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Devon E Anderson; Brandon D Markway; Derek Bond; Helen E McCarthy; Brian Johnstone Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 6.832
Authors: Amanda-Jo Joswig; Alexis Mitchell; Kevin J Cummings; Gwendolyn J Levine; Carl A Gregory; Roger Smith; Ashlee E Watts Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 6.832
Authors: Alicia L Bertone; Nathalie A Reisbig; Allison H Kilborne; Mari Kaido; Navid Salmanzadeh; Rebecca Lovasz; Joy L Sizemore; Logan Scheuermann; Rosalind J Kopp; Lisa J Zekas; Matthew T Brokken Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2017-03-10