| Literature DB >> 29018808 |
Charlotte Beerts1, Marc Suls2, Sarah Y Broeckx1, Bert Seys2, Aurélie Vandenberghe1, Jeroen Declercq3, Luc Duchateau4, Martin A Vidal5, Jan H Spaas1.
Abstract
Poor healing of tendon and ligament lesions often results in early retirement of sport horses. Therefore, regenerative therapies are being explored as potentially promising treatment for these injuries. In this study, an intralesional injection was performed with allogeneic tenogenically induced mesenchymal stem cells and platelet-rich plasma 5-6 days after diagnosis of suspensory ligament (SL) (n = 68) or superficial digital flexor tendon (SDFT) (n = 36) lesion. Clinical, lameness and ultrasonographic evaluation was performed at 6 and 12 weeks. Moreover, a survey was performed 12 and 24 months after treatment to determine how many horses were competing at original level and how many were re-injured. At 6 weeks, 88.2% of SL (n = 68) and 97.3% of SDFT lesions (n = 36) demonstrated moderate ultrasonographic improvement. At 12 weeks, 93.1% of SL (n = 29) and 95.5% of SDFT lesions (n = 22) improved convincingly. Moreover, lameness was abolished in 78.6% of SL (n = 28) and 85.7% (n = 7) of SDFT horses at 12 weeks. After 12 months (n = 92), 11.8% of SL and 12.5% of SDFT horses were re-injured, whereas 83.8 of SL and 79.2% of SDFT returned to previous performance level. At 24 months (n = 89) after treatment, 82.4 (SL) and 85.7% (SDFT) of the horses returned to previous level of performance. A meta-analysis was performed on relevant published evidence evaluating re-injury 24 months after stem cell-based [17.6% of the SL and 14.3% of the SDFT group (n = 89)] versus conventional therapies. Cell therapies resulted in a significantly lower re-injury rate of 18% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.11-0.25] 2 years after treatment compared to the 44% re-injury rate with conventional treatments (95% CI, 0.37-0.51) based on literature data (P < 0.0001).Entities:
Keywords: horse; ligament; mesenchymal stem cells; peripheral blood; tendon; tenogenic
Year: 2017 PMID: 29018808 PMCID: PMC5622984 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00158
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Different scoring systems used to evaluate SL and SDFT lesion healing.
| A score |
|---|
| 0 = 0% improvement or no ultrasonographic improvement |
| = Anechoic lesion + absence of fiber alignment |
| 1 = 20% improvement or minor ultrasonographic improvement |
| = Hypoechoic areas/diffuse decrease in echogenicity + lack of parallel pattern |
| 2 = 40% improvement or modest ultrasonographic improvement |
| = Multiple areas with decreased echogenicity + increased parallel fiber pattern |
| 3 = 60% improvement or moderate ultrasonographic improvement |
| = Demarcation with healthy tissue less distinct + increased parallel fiber pattern |
| 4 = 80% improvement or convincing ultrasonographic improvement |
| = Hardly any demarcation with healthy tissue + close to total fiber alignment |
| 5 = 100% improvement or no ultrasonographic abnormalities |
| = Normal echogenicity + (almost) normal parallel fiber alignment |
| 0 = Lameness not perceptible under any circumstances |
| 1 = Lameness is difficult to observe and is not consistently apparent, regardless of circumstances (e.g., under saddle, circling, inclines, hard surface) |
| 2 = Lameness is difficult to observe at a walk or when trotting in a straight line but consistently apparent under certain circumstances |
| 3 = Lameness is consistently observable at a trot under all circumstances |
| 4 = Lameness is obvious at a walk |
| 5 = Lameness produces minimal weight bearing in motion and/or at rest or a complete inability to move |
| 00 = Failure to return to work/re-injury |
| 0 = Rehabilitating |
| 1 = Return to work |
| 2 = Return to previous level of work |
Figure 1The ultrasound image indicates the needle inserted for injection. A standardized rehabilitation program was applied as strictly as possible starting from the evaluation at 6 ± 2 weeks (Exam 1).
Figure 2Representative transverse (arrows) and longitudinal (circles) images of superficial digital flexor tendon (SDFT) (1) and suspensory ligament (SL) (2) at the moment of acute lesion (day 0) (A), at 6 weeks after treatment (B) with an A score of 3 (at least 60% improvement), and at 12 weeks after treatment (C) with an A score of at least 4 (at least 80% of improvement). The arrows and circles indicate the location of the lesion.
Percentage of treated patients with corresponding A, B, and C scores at a 6 ± 2 weeks (Exam 1) (n1) and 12 ± 4 weeks (Exam 2) (n2) and with C scores at 12 (Exam 3) and 24 months (Exam 4) after treatment of the suspensory ligament (SL) or superficial digital flexor tendon (SDFT) with allogeneic tenogenically induced mesenchymal stem cells in combination with platelet-rich plasma.
| A score (%) | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SL | Exam 1 | 0 | 0 | 11.8 | 29.4 | 44.1 | 14.7 | |
| Exam 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.9 | 41.4 | 51.7 | ||
| SDFT | Exam 1 | 0 | 0 | 2.8 | 30.6 | 52.8 | 13.9 | |
| Exam 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.6 | 45.5 | 50.0 | ||
| SL | Exam 1 | 35.3 | 47.1 | 17.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Exam 2 | 78.6 | 14.3 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 0 | 0 | ||
| SDFT | Exam 1 | 50.0 | 37.5 | 12.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Exam 2 | 85.7 | 0 | 14.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| SL | Exam 1 | 0 | 75.0 | 22.2 | 2.8 | |||
| Exam 2 | 0 | 42.9 | 35.7 | 21.4 | ||||
| Exam 3 | 11.8 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 83.8 | ||||
| Exam 4 | 17.6 | 0 | 0 | 82.4 | ||||
| SDFT | Exam 1 | n1 = 9 | 0 | 88.9 | 11.1 | 0 | ||
| Exam 2 | 0 | 28.6 | 71.4 | 0 | ||||
| Exam 3 | 12.5 | 8.3 | 0 | 79.2 | ||||
| Exam 4 | 14.3 | 0 | 0 | 85.7 | ||||
Figure 3Forest plot representing a comparison of the re-injury rates between different stem cell treatments from the current study (Beerts) and other studies (15, 27, 28) with conventional treatments (29) using a meta-analytic approach based on the random effects model. The squares represent the re-injury rates of individual studies, with the whiskers corresponding to the 95% confidence interval (CI). The diamonds correspond to the re-injury rates and 95% CI of the two subgroups and overall.