| Literature DB >> 32082625 |
Xiangbo Meng1,2, Reihane Ziadlou3, Sibylle Grad3, Mauro Alini3, Chunyi Wen4, Yuxiao Lai2, Ling Qin2,5, Yanyan Zhao1, Xinluan Wang2,5.
Abstract
The treatment of osteochondral defects (OCD) remains a great challenge in orthopaedics. Tissue engineering holds a good promise for regeneration of OCD. In the light of tissue engineering, it is critical to establish an appropriate animal model to evaluate the degradability, biocompatibility, and interaction of implanted biomaterials with host bone/cartilage tissues for OCD repair in vivo. Currently, model animals that are commonly deployed to create osteochondral lesions range from rats, rabbits, dogs, pigs, goats, and sheep horses to nonhuman primates. It is essential to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each animal model in terms of the accuracy and effectiveness of the experiment. Therefore, this review aims to introduce the common animal models of OCD for testing biomaterials and to discuss their applications in translational research. In addition, we have reviewed surgical protocols for establishing OCD models and biomaterials that promote osteochondral regeneration. For small animals, the non-load-bearing region such as the groove of femoral condyle is commonly chosen for testing degradation, biocompatibility, and interaction of implanted biomaterials with host tissues. For large animals, closer to clinical application, the load-bearing region (medial femoral condyle) is chosen for testing the durability and healing outcome of biomaterials. This review provides an important reference for selecting a suitable animal model for the development of new strategies for osteochondral regeneration.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32082625 PMCID: PMC7007938 DOI: 10.1155/2020/9659412
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biochem Res Int
Comparison of age, cartilage, and defect size in different species.
| Species | Age of skeletal maturity | Cartilage thickness | Cartilage volume | Critical-sized defect | Common defect depth |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rat | 7 months | 0.1 mm | 2.17 mm3 | 1.4 mm | 1.0–2.0 mm |
| Rabbit | 9 months | 0.3 mm | 53 mm3 | 3.0 mm | 3.0–5.0 mm |
| Dog | 12‐24 months | 0.95 mm | 82.39 mm3 | 4.0 mm | 10–12 mm |
| Pig | 18 months | 1.5 mm | 107.47 mm3 | 6.3 mm | 8–10 mm |
| Sheep | 2‐3 years | 0.45 mm | 359.54 mm3 | 7.0 mm | 6–13 mm |
| Goat | 2‐3 years | 1.1 mm | 251.65 mm3 | 6.0 mm | 6–12 mm |
| Horse | 2‐4 years | 1.75 mm | 334.73 mm3 | 4.0 mm/9.0 mm | 10 mm |
| Monkey | 10 years [ | 0.5–0.7 mm [ | — | — | 2–4 mm |
| Human | 18–22 years | 2.35 mm | 552.25 mm3 | — | — |
Examples of studies using rat osteochondral defect models.
| Authors | Age | Defect size (diameter × depth) | Location | Endpoint | Material tested |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee and Im [ | 12 weeks | 2 mm × 2 mm | The trochlear groove of the femur | 8 weeks | SOX trio-co-transduced ASCs |
| Muttigi et al. [ | 12 weeks | 2 mm × 2 mm | The center of the groove | 12 weeks | Matrilin-3/mesenchymal stem cell |
| Mahmoud et al. [ | 10 weeks | 2 mm × 2 mm | The patellar groove of the femur | 4, 12 weeks | Muse cells |
| Dahlin et al. [ | 10–12 weeks | 2 mm × 2 mm | The center of the trochlear groove | 4, 8 weeks | PCL scaffold/MSC |
| Li et al. [ | 12 weeks | 1.5 mm × 2 mm | The trochlear groove | 6, 12 weeks | PLGA/HA-MSC |
Examples of studies using rabbit osteochondral defect models.
| Authors | Age/weight | Defect size (diameter × depth) | Location | Endpoint | Material tested |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liao et al. [ | 2–2.5 kg | 4 mm × 3 mm | The trochlear groove | 6, 12, and 18 weeks | CSMA/PECA/GO hybrid scaffold |
| Bauer et al. [ | 8 months | 4 mm × 5 mm | The medial trochlear groove | 4 and 12 weeks | Hyaluronic acid thioester |
| Ruan et al. [ | 6 months | 4 mm × 3 mm | The medial trochlear groove | 4, 8, and 12 weeks | SF/CS/nHA phase scaffold |
| Meng et al. [ | 4–6 months | 4 mm × 2 mm | The trochlear groove | 6, 12, and 24 weeks | AMP-E7/BM-MSC |
| Zhang et al. [ | 2.5–3 kg | 4 mm × 4 mm | The patellar groove | 6 and 12 weeks | COL-nanofiber and COL scaffolds |
Figure 1The process of the OCD regeneration in rabbits. A: the OCD were generated by electric drill in the femoral patellar groove; B: a 3.2 mm in diameter and 3.0 mm deep OCD was obtained; C: the biomaterial was implanted into the OCD.
Examples of studies using dog osteochondral defect models.
| Authors | Age | Defect size (diameter × depth) | Location | Endpoint | Material tested |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lv and Yu [ | 12 months | 6 mm × 12 mm | The right knee joint | 12 and 24 weeks | Nano- |
| McCarty et al. [ | — | 4.5 mm × 10 mm | The medial femoral condyle | 12 months | Osteochondral allograft |
| Salkeld et al. [ | 1.6 years | 6 mm × 11 mm | The medial femoral condyle and medial tibial plateau surfaces | 12, 24, and 52 weeks | Pyrolytic carbon scaffold and Co-Cr alloy scaffold |
| Yamazoe et al. [ | 1–3 years | 5 mm × 4.5 mm | The femoral condyles | 2, 4, and 10 weeks | Atelocollagen gel/MSCs |
Examples of studies using pig osteochondral defect models.
| Authors | Age | Defect size (diameter × depth) | Location | Endpoint | Material tested |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christensen et al. [ | 19.8 months | 6 mm × 8 mm | The medial trochlear and the lateral trochlear | 6, 24 months | Autologous dual-tissue transplantation/autologous cartilage chips |
| Betsch et al. [ | 18–30 months | 6 mm × 10 mm | The medial femoral condyle | 26 weeks | EPO/BMAC/scaffold |
| Jagodzinski et al. [ | 14 months | 7 mm × 10 mm | The medial or lateral femoral condyles | 3 months | Bone marrow derived cell concentrates |
Examples of studies using sheep osteochondral defect models.
| Authors | Age | Defect size (diameter × depth) | Location | Endpoint | Material tested |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schlichting et al. [ | 2 and 3 years | 7.3 mm × 10 mm | The femoral condyles | 3, 6 months | Stiff scaffold |
| Bernstein et al. [ | 2–4 year | 7 mm × 25 mm | The femoral condyles | 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks |
|
| Mohan et al. [ | >3.5 years | 6 mm × 6 mm | MFCs and LFCs | 1 year | PLGA/ |
| Yucekul et al. [ | — | 8 mm × 10 mm | The lateral condyles | 3, 6 and 12 months | PLLA/PCL/ |
| Mrosek et al. [ | — | 8 mm × 13 mm | The medial femoral condyle | 16 weeks | Trabecular metal with an autologous periosteum graft |
Examples of studies using goat osteochondral defect models.
| Authors | Age/weight | Defect size (diameter × depth) | Location | Endpoint | Material tested |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhang et al. [ | 12 months | 6 mm × 8 mm | Knee joint | 12, 24 weeks | BMSC-integrated osteochondral scaffolds |
| van Bergen et al. [ | 4-year-old | 6 mm × 6 mm | Knee joint | 24 weeks | Demineralized bone matrix |
| Kon et al. [ | 2-year-old | 6 mm × 10 mm | The load-bearing medial femoral condyle | 24 weeks | Aragonite-hyaluronate |
| Sun et al. [ | 22.5 kg | 9 mm × 3 mm | The weight bearing area of the medial femoral condyle | 24 weeks | Gene enhanced tissue engineering followed mosaicplasty |
| Pei et al. [ | — | 6 mm × 12 mm | The femoral medial condyle weight-bearing area | 12 and 24 weeks | Tissue-engineered osteochondral graft |
Examples of studies using horse osteochondral defect models.
| Authors | Age | Defect size (diameter × depth) | Location | Endpoint | Material tested |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seo et al. [ | 3.6 ± 2.3 years | 10 mm × 5 mm | The medial condyle | 6 months | GT/MSCs/BMP-2/PRP implantation |
| Bolanos et al. [ | 6 years | 11 mm × 10 mm | The middle aspect of medial femoral trochlear ridge | 6 months | CDM/CaP |
| McCarrel et al. [ | 2–5 years | 10 mm × 10 mm | The lateral trochlear ridge | 4, 12, and 24 months | Biphasic cartilage repair device |
| Maninchedda et al. [ | 3 years | 10 mm × 5 mm | The medial surface of lateral trochlea of talus | 6 months | Type II collagen |
Examples of studies using monkey cartilage or osteochondral defect models.
| Authors | Age | Defect size (diameter × depth) | Location | Endpoint | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buckwalter et al. [ | — | 3.2 mm × 4 mm | The patella and the medial femoral condyle | 8 weeks | Intermittent passive motion (IPM) or cast-immobilization (CI) |
| Ma et al. [ | 3–5 years old | 3.2 mm × 2 mm | Knee joints | 24 weeks | MSC-loaded ADM scaffold |
| Jiang et al. [ | 3–5 years old | 3 mm × 2 mm | The surface of distal femurs | 24 weeks | Autologous selected chondrogenic clonal MSCs |