| Literature DB >> 26069558 |
Paul Balash1, Richard W Kang1, Thorsten Schwenke1, Brian J Cole1, Markus A Wimmer1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Osteochondral graft transplantation has garnered significant attention because of its ability to replace the lesion with true hyaline cartilage. However, surgical impaction of the graft to anchor it into the defect site can be traumatic and lead to cell death and cartilage degeneration. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that increasing impulse magnitude during impaction of osteochondral plugs has a direct effect on loss of cell viability.Entities:
Keywords: impaction; impulse; osteochondral graft; viability
Year: 2010 PMID: 26069558 PMCID: PMC4297052 DOI: 10.1177/1947603510367913
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cartilage ISSN: 1947-6035 Impact factor: 4.634
Block Randomization Matrix to Plan the Removal of 16 Osteochondral Plugs from Each Animal (2 Knees)[a]
| Impulse (Ns) | Day 0 | Day 4 | Day 8 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 3.1 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| 7.0 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 9.5 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
The randomization matrix is based on impulse and day categories.
Figure 1.Exploded view (left) and working principle (right) of the pneumatic impaction device used to impact osteochondral plugs with consistent loads. By applying alternating air pressure to the chambers of the cylinder, a steel piston inside the tube is actuated. Its speed is controlled by adjusting the time profile of the compressing and sucking pressure. Each time the piston hits the end cap with defined speed, a mechanical impulse is generated and transfers through the impactor tip onto the specimen. The impulse can be varied by adjusting the piston’s weight and air pressure.
Figure 2.Cell viability example images taken at day 4 for an osteochondral plug impacted at 50 N with an impulse of 9.5 Ns shown against a control plug (D). Note the increase of cell viability (and increase of cell death) in the superficial zone compared with control. Live cells are stained green (left image), and dead cells are stained red (dead image). Cells on both images were counted, and a cell viability ratio of number of live cells to number of total cells was computed.
Figure 3.Summary of cell viability results (mean ± SD) grouped by day. Significant differences of cell viability between impulses are highlighted.
Figure 4.Summary of cell viability results (mean ± SD) grouped by impulse level. Significant differences of cell viability between days are highlighted.