| Literature DB >> 27125266 |
Okkes Bilal1, Ahmet Guney2, Ali Murat Kalender3, Ibrahim Halil Kafadar2, Muzaffer Yildirim4, Nuh Dundar3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the potential biomechanical and histological benefits of systemic erythropoietin administration during the healing of Achilles tendon injury in a rat experimental model.Entities:
Keywords: Biomechanical properties; Erythropoietin; Healing; Tendon; Tensile test
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27125266 PMCID: PMC4850695 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-016-0390-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Achilles tendon repair technique. a Arrows indicate the two ends of the cut tendon; b the arrow points the site of tendon repair using modified Kessler method
Scoring criteria for histological findings
| Score | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Revascularization | None | Mild | Moderate | Significant |
| Inflammation (percent of inflammatory cells) | None | ≤2 % | >2–≤10 % | >10 % |
| Fiber structures | None | Thin and sparse fiber structures | Irregular fiber structures | Regular fiber structures |
| Hyaline degeneration (percentage of areas with chondroid-like cells) | None | ≤10 % | >10–≤30 % | >30 % |
Results of tensile test throughout the experiment for each study group
| Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erythropoietin group | 4.9 ± 2.9 | 10.6 ± 4.04 | 19.5 ± 7.8 | 19.9 ± 4.7 | 0.001 |
| Control group | 4.0 ± 2.0 | 8.2 ± 2.3 | 12.8 ± 3.5 | 20.2 ± 8.7 | 0.002 |
|
| 1.000 | 0.329 | 0.167 | 1.000 |
Data are presented as mean ± SD
In the erythropoietin group, week 4 (p = 0.001) and week 3 (p = 0.002) values are higher than week 1 value
In controls, week 4 value is higher than week 1 value (p = 0.001)
Raw data is provided in Additional file 1
Changes in revascularization, inflammation, fiber structure, and hyaline degeneration scores and number of fibroblasts throughout the experiment for each study group
| Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revascularization score | |||||
| Erythropoietin group | 3 (3–3) | 1 (1–1) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 0.012 |
| Control group | 2 (1–2.5) | 0.5 (0–0.5) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 0.035b |
|
| 0.100 | 0.100 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| Inflammation score | |||||
| Erythropoietin group | 2 (2–3) | 1 (0–1) | 1 (0–1) | 0 (0–1) | 0.061 |
| Control group | 3 (2–3) | 1 (0–1) | 0 (0–1) | 0.5 (0–1) | 0.075 |
|
| 0.700 | 1.000 | 0.700 | 0.800 | |
| Fiber structure score | |||||
| Erythropoietin group | 1 (0–1) | 1 (1–1) | 2 (2–2) | 3 (3–3) | 0.015 |
| Control group | 1 (1–1) | 2 (2–2) | 3 (3–3) | 3 (3–3) | 0.019 |
|
| 0.700 | 0.100 | 0.100 | 1.000 | |
| Hyaline degeneration score | |||||
| Erythropoietin group | 0 (0–0) | 1 (0–1) | 1 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 0.051 |
| Control group | 0 (0–0) | 1 (1–2) | 3 (1–3) | 2.5 (2–3) | 0.053 |
|
| 1.000 | 0.400 | 0.700 | 0.800 | |
| Number of fibroblasts | |||||
| Erythropoietin group | 22 (8–28) | 40 (32–47) | 54 (40–54) | 27 (12–30) | 0.030b |
| Control group | 20 (16–33) | 45 (27–52) | 44 (30–45) | 32 (30–35) | 0.272 |
|
| 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.400 | 0.200 |
Data are presented as median (range)
aOverall p value for differences between four time points
bDespite statistical significance for overall difference, post hoc analysis did not identify a significantly different time point
Raw data is provided in Additional file 2
Fig. 2A representative serial revascularization images of the erythropoietin group (E1 through E3) and the control group (K1 through K3) at different time points (week 1 through week 3) with their semi-quantitative revascularization scores. Figures at the right bottom corner denotes revascularization scores. Hematoxylin and eosin stain, ×20 magnification. Arrows indicate vascular proliferation areas