| Literature DB >> 28622807 |
Yunus Emre Akman1, Erhan Sukur2, Ahmet Senel3, Nur Ece Oztas Sukur4, Canan Kelten Talu5, Yusuf Ozturkmen3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this experimental study was to investigate the impact of HA-CS-NAG compound (hyaluronate, sodium chondroitin sulfate, N-acetyl-d-glucosamine) on the quality of repair tissue after micro-fracture and to compare it with HA (hyaluronat), in a rat full-thickness chondral defect model.Entities:
Keywords: Cartilage lesion; Chondroitin sulfate; Hyaluronate; Micro-fracture; N-acetyl-d-glucosamine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28622807 PMCID: PMC6197372 DOI: 10.1016/j.aott.2017.04.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc ISSN: 1017-995X Impact factor: 1.511
Fig. 1a) The appearance of the holes formed by the micro-fracture procedure in the chondral defect created in the intercondylary notch b) The injection applied in the rat's knee.
Fig. 2a) The defective area in a specimen belonging Group 3, composed mostly of fibrocartilaginous tissue with superficial depression, is seen in the upper right corner of the picture. b) Toluidine blue staining shows complete loss of matrix metachromasia in the defective area.
Fig. 3a) The defective area in a specimen belonging Group 1, composed mostly of fibrous tissue rich in vessels is seen in the center of the picture. b) Toluidine blue staining shows loss of metachromatic staining in the damage area (arrows). However, increased metachromatic staining is recognized in the area surrounding the base of the damage (asterisk).
Fig. 4a) The defective area in a specimen belonging Group 2, composed mostly of fibrous granulation tissue with prominent depression, is seen in the right part of the picture. b) Metachromatic staining is completely lost in the damage area. Normal cartilaginous tissue with typical metachromatic staining with Toluidine blue is seen in the right part of the picture.
Mean scores of the Wakitani scoring system parameters of each group after the treatment and the statistical evaluation among the 3 groups.
| Group 1 (microfracture only) | Group 2 (Microfracture + HA) | Group 3 (Microfracture + HA–CS–NAG) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| Cell morphology | 3.18 ± 0.87 | 2.45 ± 0.52 | 1.82 ± 0.60 | 0.000 |
| Matrix staining | 2.27 ± 0.79 | 1.91 ± 0.70 | 2.00 ± 0.63 | 0.466 |
| Surface regularity | 2.00 ± 0.63 | 1.73 ± 0.65 | 1.55 ± 0.82 | 0.328 |
| Thickness of cartilage | 1.73 ± 0.47 | 1.45 ± 0.52 | 1.18 ± 0.60 | 0.072 |
| Integration of donor with host | 1.64 ± 0.50 | 1.36 ± 0.50 | 0.64 ± 0.67 | 0.001 |
| Total score | 10.82 ± 2.09 | 8.91 ± 1.64 | 7.18 ± 1.47 | 0.000 |
Intergroup comparisons of the Wakitani scoring system parameters.
| Group 1 vs Group 2 | Group 1 vs Group 3 | Group 2 vs Group 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cell morphology | 0.042 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Matrix staining | 0.239 | 0.374 | 0.766 |
| Surface regularity | 0.239 | 0.141 | 0.550 |
| Thickness of cartilage | 0.240 | 0.230 | 0.240 |
| Integration of donor with host | 0.211 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Total score | 0.041 | 0.000 | 0.028 |