Jan C Schagemann1, Nicola Rudert2, Michelle E Taylor3, Sotcheadt Sim4, Eric Quenneville5, Martin Garon5, Mathias Klinger6, Michael D Buschmann7, Hagen Mittelstaedt2. 1. University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Clinic for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Lübeck, Germany; Mayo Clinic, Orthopedic Surgery, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck, Clinic for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Lübeck, Germany. 3. Mayo Clinic, Orthopedic Surgery, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Biomedical and Chemical Engineering, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, Canada; Biomomentum Inc., Laval, Quebec, Canada. 5. Biomomentum Inc., Laval, Quebec, Canada. 6. University of Lübeck, Institute of Anatomy, Lübeck, Germany. 7. Biomedical and Chemical Engineering, Polytechnique Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the regenerative capacity of 2 distinct bilayer implants for the restoration of osteochondral defects in a preliminary sheep model. METHODS: Critical sized osteochondral defects were treated with a novel biomimetic poly-ε-caprolactone (PCL) implant (Treatment No. 2; n = 6) or a combination of Chondro-Gide and Orthoss (Treatment No. 1; n = 6). At 19 months postoperation, repair tissue (n = 5 each) was analyzed for histology and biochemistry. Electromechanical mappings (Arthro-BST) were performed ex vivo. RESULTS: Histological scores, electromechanical quantitative parameter values, dsDNA and sGAG contents measured at the repair sites were statistically lower than those obtained from the contralateral surfaces. Electromechanical mappings and higher dsDNA and sGAG/weight levels indicated better regeneration for Treatment No. 1. However, these differences were not significant. For both treatments, Arthro-BST revealed early signs of degeneration of the cartilage surrounding the repair site. The International Cartilage Repair Society II histological scores of the repair tissue were significantly higher for Treatment No. 1 (10.3 ± 0.38 SE) compared to Treatment No. 2 (8.7 ± 0.45 SE). The parameters cell morphology and vascularization scored highest whereas tidemark formation scored the lowest. CONCLUSION: There was cell infiltration and regeneration of bone and cartilage. However, repair was incomplete and fibrocartilaginous. There were no significant differences in the quality of regeneration between the treatments except in some histological scoring categories. The results from Arthro-BST measurements were comparable to traditional invasive/destructive methods of measuring quality of cartilage repair.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the regenerative capacity of 2 distinct bilayer implants for the restoration of osteochondral defects in a preliminary sheep model. METHODS: Critical sized osteochondral defects were treated with a novel biomimetic poly-ε-caprolactone (PCL) implant (Treatment No. 2; n = 6) or a combination of Chondro-Gide and Orthoss (Treatment No. 1; n = 6). At 19 months postoperation, repair tissue (n = 5 each) was analyzed for histology and biochemistry. Electromechanical mappings (Arthro-BST) were performed ex vivo. RESULTS: Histological scores, electromechanical quantitative parameter values, dsDNA and sGAG contents measured at the repair sites were statistically lower than those obtained from the contralateral surfaces. Electromechanical mappings and higher dsDNA and sGAG/weight levels indicated better regeneration for Treatment No. 1. However, these differences were not significant. For both treatments, Arthro-BST revealed early signs of degeneration of the cartilage surrounding the repair site. The International Cartilage Repair Society II histological scores of the repair tissue were significantly higher for Treatment No. 1 (10.3 ± 0.38 SE) compared to Treatment No. 2 (8.7 ± 0.45 SE). The parameters cell morphology and vascularization scored highest whereas tidemark formation scored the lowest. CONCLUSION: There was cell infiltration and regeneration of bone and cartilage. However, repair was incomplete and fibrocartilaginous. There were no significant differences in the quality of regeneration between the treatments except in some histological scoring categories. The results from Arthro-BST measurements were comparable to traditional invasive/destructive methods of measuring quality of cartilage repair.
Authors: Caroline Hoemann; Rita Kandel; Sally Roberts; Daniel B F Saris; Laura Creemers; Pierre Mainil-Varlet; Stephane Méthot; Anthony P Hollander; Michael D Buschmann Journal: Cartilage Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: J C Schagemann; L Galle; J Gille; A Frydrychowicz; G Welsch; G Salzmann; A Paech; H Mittelstaedt Journal: Cartilage Date: 2022 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 3.117