Biao Kuang1,2,3, Yuanheng Yang4,3, Hang Lin3,5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410008, China. 2. Molecular Therapy Lab, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219, United States. 3. Center for Cellular and Molecular Engineering, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219, United States. 4. Department of Plastic Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410008, China. 5. McGowan Institute of Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219, United States.
Abstract
Effective and biocompatible fixation of implants into cartilage defects has yet to be successfully achieved. [Poly-d,l-lactic acid/polyethyleneglycol/poly-d,l-lactic acid] (PDLLA-PEG) is a chondrosupportive scaffold that is photocross-linked using the visible-light photoinitiator lithium phenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoylphosphinate (LAP). Interestingly, LAP and its monomer DLLA-EG are able to infiltrate the cartilage and form hydrogels upon the detection of light. After the infiltration of LAP and DLLA-EG into the implant and host cartilage, an interconnected and continuous hydrogel structure is formed which fixes the implant within the host cartilage. A mechanical test shows that the infiltrated group displays a significantly higher push-out force than the group that has not been infiltrated (the traditional fibrin fixation group). Surprisingly, the in-cartilage hydrogel also reduces the release of sulfated glycosaminoglycan from cartilage explants. However, infiltration does not affect the cell viability or the expression of cartilage marker genes. This new strategy thus represents a biocompatible and efficient method to fix implants into host tissues.
Effective and biocompatible fixation of implants into cartilage defects has yet to be successfully achieved. [Poly-d,l-lactic acid/polyethyleneglycol/poly-d,l-lactic acid] (PDLLA-PEG) is a chondrosupportive scaffold that is photocross-linked using the visible-light photoinitiator lithium phenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoylphosphinate (LAP). Interestingly, LAP and its monomer DLLA-EG are able to infiltrate the cartilage and form hydrogels upon the detection of light. After the infiltration of LAP and DLLA-EG into the implant and host cartilage, an interconnected and continuous hydrogel structure is formed which fixes the implant within the host cartilage. A mechanical test shows that the infiltrated group displays a significantly higher push-out force than the group that has not been infiltrated (the traditional fibrin fixation group). Surprisingly, the in-cartilage hydrogel also reduces the release of sulfated glycosaminoglycan from cartilage explants. However, infiltration does not affect the cell viability or the expression of cartilage marker genes. This new strategy thus represents a biocompatible and efficient method to fix implants into host tissues.
Articular
cartilage injury affects approximately 900,000 people in the United States alone every
year and represents a significant challenge for healthcare professionals.[1−3] If left untreated, it can cause pain and swelling and eventually
lead to the onset of osteoarthritis.[4−6] Currently, there are
several surgical treatments available, such as microfracture, autologous
chondrocyte implantation, and osteochondral transplantation. However,
none of the previous ones are able to fully restore the structure
and function of the injured cartilage.[7,8] One reason
for the unsatisfactory results of implantation surgeries can be the
insufficiency of fixing the implants.[9]Currently, there are various fixation strategies being used in
the field, such as press-fitting, suturing, subchondral anchoring,[9] fibrin gluing, or a combination of a few. Among
these methods, suturing and subchondral anchoring can cause extra
damage to the cartilage, and press-fitting can cause cell death because
of the high pressure between the implant and the host tissue.[10] Fibrin glue has been widely used to temporarily
fix grafts, but the fixation is weak and does not last long because
of its rapid degradation.[11−13]Recently, we have developed
[poly-d,l-lactic
acid/polyethyleneglycol/poly-d,l-lactic acid] (PDLLA-PEG)-based
scaffolds for cartilage repair, which have been polymerized by the
photoinitiator lithium phenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoylphosphinate
(LAP).[14] Interestingly, we found that both
monomers, [d,l-lactic acid/ethyleneglycol/d,l-lactic acid] (DLLA-EG) and LAP, before polymerization,
could infiltrate the cartilage and become photocross-linked. This
unique in-cartilage gelation capacity of PDLLA-PEG inspired the potential
application in tissue fixation (Figure a). In this new method, the implant and the internal
side of the host cartilage that contacts the implant were precultured
with a DLLA-EG/LAP solution. This allows for the infiltration of monomers
and photoinitiators. Afterward, the implant was transferred into the
defected area of host tissue with an additional DLLA-EG/LAP solution
to fill the gap in between. We hypothesized that upon illumination,
an interconnected and continuous hydrogel network would form from
the host cartilage to the implant through the gap zone, resulting
in a secure fixation (Figure a). To test our hypothesis, we created a traditional in vitro
ring-disk cartilage repair model, in which a bovine cartilage ring
[6 mm outer diameter (OD) and 4 mm inner diameter (ID)] is used as
the host tissue, and a 3 mm diameter cartilage disk served as the
implant (Figure b).
The gap between the host tissue and the graft ranged from 0 to 1 mm.
Figure 1
(a) Schematic
diagram of a new fixation technology. In this approach,
the implant (cartilage) and host osteochondral (OC) tissue were pre-infiltrated
with the DLLA-EG/LAP solution. Afterward, the implant was placed into
the defect area of the host tissue, and an additional DLLA-EG/LAP
solution was applied to fill the void space in between. The entire
construct was then subject to illumination. Finally, an interconnected
and continuous polymer network was formed, which created a strong
fixation between the host and graft tissue. (b) Validation of in-cartilage
polymerization. After pre-filtration for 0 (PreI-0min) or 5 min (PreI-5min)
with DLLA-EG/LAP, the implant was fixed into the host tissue as described
above. Papain was then used to digest the native cartilage completely.
The indigestible polymer was left unchanged. (c) Weight of the polymer
from two groups. (d) Real-time PCR analysis of cartilage without (control)
or with infiltration (PreI-5min). The samples were collected after
0, 14, and 28 days in chondrogenic medium (D0, D14, and D28). All
data were normalized to those from the D0 control group (* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, n = 3 in c and d).
(a) Schematic
diagram of a new fixation technology. In this approach,
the implant (cartilage) and host osteochondral (OC) tissue were pre-infiltrated
with the DLLA-EG/LAP solution. Afterward, the implant was placed into
the defect area of the host tissue, and an additional DLLA-EG/LAP
solution was applied to fill the void space in between. The entire
construct was then subject to illumination. Finally, an interconnected
and continuous polymer network was formed, which created a strong
fixation between the host and graft tissue. (b) Validation of in-cartilage
polymerization. After pre-filtration for 0 (PreI-0min) or 5 min (PreI-5min)
with DLLA-EG/LAP, the implant was fixed into the host tissue as described
above. Papain was then used to digest the native cartilage completely.
The indigestible polymer was left unchanged. (c) Weight of the polymer
from two groups. (d) Real-time PCR analysis of cartilage without (control)
or with infiltration (PreI-5min). The samples were collected after
0, 14, and 28 days in chondrogenic medium (D0, D14, and D28). All
data were normalized to those from the D0 control group (* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, n = 3 in c and d).
Results and Discussion
First, we would like to measure
the infiltration rate of monomers,
which will help determine the location of polymers within the cartilage.
It is difficult to directly monitor the movement of the monomers,
so we used the molecular tracer Biocytin Alexa Fluor 546 to help track
them; Biocytin Alexa Fluor 546 has a molecular weight of 1209 Da,
similar to DLLA-EG (1144 Da). The cartilage disks were soaked into
a dye solution for different periods time and then imaged with a fluorescence
microscope. As shown in Figure S1 (in the Supporting Information), the fastest travel occurred in the first 5 min.
During this period, monomers may infiltrate roughly 0.6 mm. Then,
both the cartilage disk and the internal side of the ring were incubated
with DLLA-EG/LAP for 5 min. Afterward, an additional monomer solution
was used to fill the gap. The entire construct was subject to illumination––this
group was named “PreI-5min”. An additional control group
“PreI-0min” underwent the same procedure but without
the infiltration process.To validate the in-scaffold formation
of hydrogel, the cured constructs
were treated by papain, which was able to completely digest the cartilage
(both ring and disk), without breaking down the PDLLA-PEG hydrogel.
As shown in Figure b, the remaining polymer in the PreI-5min group was intact and significantly
larger than that of the PreI-0min group. The weight of the polymers
in the PreI-5min group (31.37 mg ± 2.173, n =
3) was more than 2 times higher than the PreI-0min group (14.2 mg
± 1.044, n = 3) (Figure c), indicating that a PDLLA-PEG hydrogel
network was formed within the cartilage. It should be noted that there
is some uncertainty on how the photoinitiator responds. As the wavelength
of the light source is 395 nm, it should not pass through the opaque
cartilage to activate the photoinitiator.[15] Given the fact that free radicals can penetrate a tissue very quickly,[16] we assume that the free radicals generated in
the gap zone might travel into the cartilage and initiate polymerization.Whether all the monomers in the cartilage had been fully polymerized
is unknown. To test whether the infiltration process and the monomer
residues, if any, would adversely affect the phenotype of the cartilage,
the constructs with and without infiltration were cultured up to 28
days. From the results in Figure d, it is observed that samples from the PreI-5min group
displayed a higher level of aggrecan (ACAN) and collagen
type II (COL2), which are the chondrogenic markers.
These results could actually be beneficial in associating PDLLA-PEG
with the ability to support chondrogenesis.[14]After the implants were fixed in the host tissue, a standard
push-out
test was conducted to evaluate the binding strength between the two.
The traditional fibrin glue-based fixation method was used as the
control. We also assessed how different infiltration times would affect
the fixation results. As shown in Figure a, 5 min of infiltration resulted in a maximum
force (MF) of 1504.75 kPa, which was 20 times higher than that of
the fibrin group (73.86 kPa). The MF did not increase after 5 min
of infiltration; thus, 5 min was used in all future studies. To better
demonstrate the result of infiltration, we recorded the force change
in a separate pull-out test (Figure S2, Movie S1 in the Supporting Information). As demonstrated
in the video, the force that was needed to pull the implant out from
the host tissue was significantly higher in the PreI-5min group (Movie S1).
Figure 2
(a) Maximal force in the push-out test.
(b) Cell viability analysis.
After being cultured in chondrogenic medium for 7 days, constructs
from different groups were analyzed by live/dead staining; green =
live cells, red = dead cells. The live cell ratio was measured based
on the imaging (* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001, **** = p < 0.0001).
(a) Maximal force in the push-out test.
(b) Cell viability analysis.
After being cultured in chondrogenic medium for 7 days, constructs
from different groups were analyzed by live/dead staining; green =
live cells, red = dead cells. The live cell ratio was measured based
on the imaging (* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001, **** = p < 0.0001).One disadvantage of the suture
and press-fit technologies is the
risk of adversely impacting tissue health.[17] For example, press-fitting may cause chondrocyte necrosis and cartilage
matrix degradation in the interface area.[10] We also examined that the continuous force generated by suturing
would induce chondrocyte apoptosis.[18] To
determine whether the new fixation method developed in this study
would have a similar issue, we examined the chondrocyte viability
and phenotypes. As shown in Figure b, there was no difference in the live cell ratio of
all tested groups, suggesting this fixation process is biocompatible.After 4 weeks of culture in chondrogenic medium, we re-examined
the connection between the implant and the host tissue. As shown in Figure a, the control group,
without the application of any type of fixation, showed no physical
connection between the implant and the host tissue. In the fibrin
group, some of the implants disconnected from the host tissue during
the change in the medium, suggesting poor integration. In the PreI-5min
group, all grafts stayed in position. The safranin O/fast green staining
revealed a physical structure between the implant and the host tissue
(Figure a). As this
area was acellular, we assumed it to be a PDLLA-PEG hydrogel scaffold.
Figure 3
After
28 days of culture in chondrogenic medium, constructs with
different fixation methods were analyzed. (a) Macro-appearance (top)
and histology (safranin O staining, bottom). Black arrow indicates
the fibrin residual. White arrow indicates the PDLLA-PEG hydrogel
in the gap between the implant and the host tissue. (b) Maximal force
in the push-out test. (c) Measurement of sulfated glycosaminoglycan
(sGAG) and dsDNA content in the constructs (* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001, **** = p < 0.0001).
After
28 days of culture in chondrogenic medium, constructs with
different fixation methods were analyzed. (a) Macro-appearance (top)
and histology (safranin O staining, bottom). Black arrow indicates
the fibrin residual. White arrow indicates the PDLLA-PEG hydrogel
in the gap between the implant and the host tissue. (b) Maximal force
in the push-out test. (c) Measurement of sulfated glycosaminoglycan
(sGAG) and dsDNA content in the constructs (* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001, **** = p < 0.0001).Agreeing with the results above, the push-out test showed
that
measurable data could only be collected from the PreI-5min group (Figure b). After 28 days
of culture, the MF in the PreI-5min group was lower than that at day
0 but was still higher than that of the fibrin group on day 0. The
reduction of MF in the PreI-5min group may be because of the degradation
of PDLLA-PEG.[19] The reason that we chose
the biodegradable PDLLA-PEG was to eventually replace the exogenous
scaffolds with the newly formed cartilage, leading to a functional
and biological integration. If a stable fixation is necessary, we
can simply replace PDLLA-PEG with a PEG scaffold. The PEG scaffold
lacks a hydrolysis group, resulting in a very minimal degradation
under physiological conditions.Our previous results showed
that the inclusion of chondro-induced
mesenchymal stem cells could compensate for the loss of the mechanical
strength of the PDLLA-PEG scaffold by providing a cartilage extracellular
matrix.[14] A similar strategy can be used
in the future to maintain the fixation strength and create biological
integration.Finally, we measured sGAG in the cartilage. We
hypothesized that
the hydrogel formed within the scaffold would reduce the release of
sGAG, a common problem observed in explants.[20−22] As expected,
the cartilage in the infiltration group maintained a significantly
greater amount of sGAG than the control group and fibrin group did
(Figure c). Therefore,
the hydrogel network not only significantly increased the fixation
strength but also enhanced the health of the cartilage.
Conclusions
To summarize, in this in vitro study, we developed
a new strategy
to fix cartilage implants into host tissue. With this method, we achieved
a high-strength bond between the implant and host cartilage without
affecting the cell viability and tissue phenotype. To infiltrate the
in vivo cartilage with DLLA-EG/LAP, a gauze that is completely soaked
with the DLLA-EG/LAP solution should be filled into the defect area.
Because the gauze is able to hold the aqueous solution, DLLA-EG/LAP
will be able to infiltrate into the cartilage. The utilization of
this fixation technology will be further examined in a study on animals
in the future.
Experimental Materials and
Methods
Cartilage, Explants, Isolation, and Culture
Articular cartilage explants were harvested from the knee joint
of a newborn bovine within 24 h after being sacrificed (JW Treuth
and Sons, Baltimore, MD). After being washed with HEPES buffered sterile
saline (HBSS), the cartilage disks with 6 mm diameter and 3–4
mm thickness were balanced in a basic medium [Dulbecco’s modified
Eagle’s medium (DMEM; Gibco, Gaithersburg, MD), 10% fetal bovine
serum (Atlanta Biological, Lawrenceville, GA), and 1% antibiotic–antimycotic
(Gibco)] for 24 h. Then, an inner plug with a 3 mm diameter was punched
out from the center of the cartilage disk, which would be used as
the implant. After the 4 mm diameter biopsy punch was used to make
the void space bigger, the cartilage ring, which had an OD of 6 mm
and ID of 4 mm, was treated as the host tissue (Figure b).
Infiltration of DLLA-EG/LAP
into Cartilage
Explants
DLLA-EG and LAP were synthesized using a protocol
developed in our lab.[14] For infiltration,
grafts and host tissues were cultured in a 25% DLLA-EG HBSS solution
with 0.2% LAP for 5 min. Afterward, the implant was inserted into
the host tissue with an open space ranging from 0 to 1 mm in diameter.
The open space was filled with the DLLA-EG/LAP solution, and then
the whole construct was subject to illumination for 2 min. We first
used the DLLA-EG/LAP solution to fill the open space but without the
presoaking (infiltration) process. Then, we used fibrin glue (Tisseel,
Baxter Healthcare Corp, Deerfield, IL) to fill the open space (without
using PDLLA-PEG); these were the two controls. All cartilage explants
were cultured in chondrogenic medium (DMEM with 1% l-alanyl-l-glutamine (GlutaMAX), 55 mg/L sodium pyruvate, 1% antibiotic–antimycotic,
1% insulin transferrin-selenium (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA), 10
ng/mL transforming growth factor-β3 (TGF-β3; PeproTech,
Rocky Hill, NJ, USA), 100 nM dexamethasone, 50 μM l-ascorbic acid 2-phosphate, and 23 μM l-proline).
Measuring the Weight of Polymers within the
Cartilage
After the photocross-linking, the entire construct
was digested in papain solution (125 mg/mL papain, 50 mM sodium phosphate
buffer, 2 mM N-acetyl cysteine (Sigma), pH 6.5) at
60 °C for 24 h. The weights of polymers from different groups
were measured using an analytical balance (MS304S, Mettler Toledo,
Switzerland).
Gene Expression Analysis
Total RNA
was extracted with the TRIZOL reagent (Invitrogen) and further purified
with an RNeasy Plus Mini Kit (Qiagen, Germantown, MD, USA). cDNA was
synthesized with a SuperScript VILO cDNA Synthesis Kit (Invitrogen)
by following the product manual. Real-time polymerase chain reaction
(PCR) was performed with SYBR Green (Invitrogen) by the StepOnePlus
real-time system (Applied Biosystems). All of the mRNA expression
levels were normalized to 18S rRNA. The relative gene expression level
was calculated using the 2–ΔΔ method. All primers used in this study are listed
in Table S1.
Push-Out
Test
The push-out test was
conducted with a mechanical tester (Bose Electroforce model 3230 Series
II).[23] The cartilage samples, implants,
and host tissues were placed on a custom metal ring with an OD of
6 mm and ID of 4 mm. As the void space of the metal ring is larger
than the implant but smaller than the host tissue, the force that
was needed to push the implant out of the host tissue comes from the
interconnected bond. A 2 mm diameter metal plunger was used to push
the implant. During the process, the force was recorded until the
implant was completely separated from the host tissue. The displacement
rate was 0.1 mm/s. The MF was used to compare how effective the fixation
was among the different groups.
Pull-Out
Test
As shown in Figure S2, similar
to the push-out test, the
whole construct was placed underneath a metal mold whose void space
was bigger than the implant but smaller than the host tissue. A suture
was inserted into the center of the implant with a spring scale attached
to the top. We pulled the spring scale up vertically until the implant
was completely disconnected from the host tissue.
Assessment of Cell Viability
A viability/cytotoxicity
kit (Invitrogen) was used to assess cell viability in cartilage, with
or without the infiltration procedure. Images were captured with an
inverted epifluorescence microscope (Olympus CKX41, Japan). Green
fluorescent staining indicated the presence of live cells, and red
staining suggested dead cells. The number of live cells (green) was
divided by the total cell number (green + red) to calculate the live
cell percentage.
Histology
The
cartilage samples were
fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (FD Neurotechnologies, Inc., Columbia,
MD) at room temperature for 16 h. All samples were then dehydrated
in gradient ethanol and cleared with xylene (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh,
PA) for 2 h. Finally, all samples were embedded in paraffin. Afterward,
6 μm sections were prepared with a microtome (Leica Biosystems,
model RM 2255). The sections were stained with safranin O/fast green
to measure the deposition of sGAG.
Measurement
of sGAG Content in Cartilage Explants
The cartilage samples
were digested in papain solution at 60 °C
for 24 h. After centrifugation at 12,000g for 15
min, a part of the supernatant was used to assess the sGAG content
with a Blyscan kit (Biocolor Life Science Assay, UK). Another part
of the supernatant was used to measure the dsDNA content, which was
conducted using a QuantiT PicoGreen dsDNA Assay Kit (Invitrogen).
Statistical Analysis
All data in
this study were analyzed using unpaired Student’s t test or two-way analysis of variance. All values were expressed
as mean ± standard deviation, and p < 0.05
was defined as the statistical significance.
Authors: Guilherme C Gracitelli; Vinícius Y Moraes; Carlos Es Franciozi; Marcus V Luzo; João Carlos Belloti Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-09-03
Authors: Alvin W Su; Yunchan Chen; Dustin H Wailes; Van W Wong; Shengqiang Cai; Albert C Chen; William D Bugbee; Robert L Sah Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: James M Friedman; Mackenzie L Sennett; Marcelo B Bonadio; Kerry O Orji; Alexander L Neuwirth; Niobra Keah; James L Carey; Franklin T Moutos; Bradley T Estes; Farshid Guilak; Henning Madry; Robert L Mauck; George R Dodge Journal: Cartilage Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Lawrence V Gulotta; Jonas R Rudzki; David Kovacevic; Christopher C T Chen; Dejan Milentijevic; Riley J Williams Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Hang Lin; Anthony Wai-Ming Cheng; Peter G Alexander; Angela M Beck; Rocky S Tuan Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.845