Literature DB >> 32098585

Influence of Geometry and Architecture on the In Vivo Success of 3D-Printed Scaffolds for Spinal Fusion.

Mitchell Hallman1,2, J Adam Driscoll1,2, Ryan Lubbe1,2, Soyeon Jeong1,2, Kevin Chang1,2, Meraaj Haleem1,2, Adam Jakus2,3,4, Richard Pahapill1,2, Chawon Yun1,2, Ramille Shah2,3,4,5,6, Wellington K Hsu1,2, Stuart R Stock2,7,8, Erin L Hsu1,2.   

Abstract

We previously developed a recombinant growth factor-free, three-dimensional (3D)-printed material comprising hydroxyapatite (HA) and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) for bone regeneration. This material has demonstrated the capacity to promote re-mineralization of the DBM particles within the scaffold struts and shows potential to promote successful spine fusion. Here, we investigate the role of geometry and architecture in osteointegration, vascularization, and facilitation of spine fusion in a preclinical model. Inks containing HA and DBM particles in a poly(lactide-co-glycolide) elastomer were 3D-printed into scaffolds with varying relative strut angles (90° vs. 45° advancing angle), macropore size (0 μm vs. 500 μm vs. 1000 μm), and strut alignment (aligned vs. offset). The following configurations were compared with scaffolds containing no macropores: 90°/500 μm/aligned, 45°/500 μm/aligned, 90°/1000 μm/aligned, 45°/1000 μm/aligned, 90°/1000 μm/offset, and 45°/1000 μm/offset. Eighty-four female Sprague-Dawley rats underwent spine fusion with bilateral placement of the various scaffold configurations (n = 12/configuration). Osteointegration and vascularization were assessed by using microComputed Tomography and histology, and spine fusion was assessed via blinded manual palpation. The 45°/1000 μm scaffolds with aligned struts achieved the highest average fusion score (1.61/2) as well as the highest osteointegration score. Both the 45°/1000 μm/aligned and 90°/1000 μm/aligned scaffolds elicited fusion rates of 100%, which was significantly greater than the 45°/500 μm/aligned iteration (p < 0.05). All porous scaffolds were fully vascularized, with blood vessels present in every macropore. Vessels were also observed extending from the native transverse process bone, through the protrusions of new bone, and into the macropores of the scaffolds. When viewed independently, scaffolds printed with relative strut angles of 45° and 90° each allowed for osteointegration sufficient to stabilize the spine at L4-L5. Within those parameters, a pore size of 500 μm or greater was generally sufficient to achieve unilateral fusion. However, our results suggest that scaffolds printed with the larger pore size and with aligned struts at an advancing angle of 45° may represent the optimal configuration to maximize osteointegration and fusion capacity. Overall, this work suggests that the HA/DBM composite scaffolds provide a conducive environment for bone regeneration as well as vascular infiltration. This technology, therefore, represents a novel, growth-factor-free biomaterial with significant potential as a bone graft substitute for use in spinal surgery. Impact statement We previously developed a recombinant growth factor-free, three-dimensional (3D)-printed composite material comprising hydroxyapatite and demineralized bone matrix for bone regeneration. Here, we identify a range of 3D geometric and architectural parameters that support the preclinical success of the scaffold, including efficient vascularization, osteointegration, and, ultimately, spinal fusion. Our results suggest that this material holds great promise as a clinically translatable biomaterial for use as a bone graft substitute in orthopedic procedures requiring bone regeneration.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D printing; bone regeneration; ceramic scaffold; demineralized bone matrix; spine fusion

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32098585      PMCID: PMC7826428          DOI: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2020.0004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tissue Eng Part A        ISSN: 1937-3341            Impact factor:   3.845


  37 in total

1.  Three-dimensional plotted scaffolds with controlled pore size gradients: Effect of scaffold geometry on mechanical performance and cell seeding efficiency.

Authors:  Jorge M Sobral; Sofia G Caridade; Rui A Sousa; João F Mano; Rui L Reis
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 8.947

Review 2.  Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis.

Authors:  Vassilis Karageorgiou; David Kaplan
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 12.479

3.  Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008.

Authors:  Sean S Rajaee; Hyun W Bae; Linda E A Kanim; Rick B Delamarter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Gel scaffolds of BMP-2-binding peptide amphiphile nanofibers for spinal arthrodesis.

Authors:  Sungsoo S Lee; Erin L Hsu; Marco Mendoza; Jason Ghodasra; Michael S Nickoli; Amruta Ashtekar; Mahesh Polavarapu; Jacob Babu; Rehan M Riaz; Joseph D Nicolas; David Nelson; Sohaib Z Hashmi; Start R Kaltz; Jeffrey S Earhart; Bradley R Merk; Jeff S McKee; Shawn F Bairstow; Ramille N Shah; Wellington K Hsu; Samuel I Stupp
Journal:  Adv Healthc Mater       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 9.933

Review 5.  A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned.

Authors:  Eugene J Carragee; Eric L Hurwitz; Bradley K Weiner
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 6.  3D Printing of Calcium Phosphate Ceramics for Bone Tissue Engineering and Drug Delivery.

Authors:  Ryan Trombetta; Jason A Inzana; Edward M Schwarz; Stephen L Kates; Hani A Awad
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 3.934

Review 7.  Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 16: bone graft extenders and substitutes as an adjunct for lumbar fusion.

Authors:  Michael G Kaiser; Michael W Groff; William C Watters; Zoher Ghogawala; Praveen V Mummaneni; Andrew T Dailey; Tanvir F Choudhri; Jason C Eck; Alok Sharan; Jeffrey C Wang; Sanjay S Dhall; Daniel K Resnick
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2014-07

8.  Characterizing the host response to rhBMP-2 in a rat spinal arthrodesis model.

Authors:  Wellington K Hsu; Mahesh Polavarapu; Rehan Riaz; Andrew C Larson; Jared J Diegmueller; Jason H Ghodasra; Erin L Hsu
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  3D printed hyperelastic "bone" scaffolds and regional gene therapy: A novel approach to bone healing.

Authors:  Ram Alluri; Adam Jakus; Sofia Bougioukli; William Pannell; Osamu Sugiyama; Amy Tang; Ramille Shah; Jay R Lieberman
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 4.396

Review 10.  Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery: from basic science to clinical practice.

Authors:  V Campana; G Milano; E Pagano; M Barba; C Cicione; G Salonna; W Lattanzi; G Logroscino
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 3.896

View more
  3 in total

1.  Osteoinductivity and biomechanical assessment of a 3D printed demineralized bone matrix-ceramic composite in a rat spine fusion model.

Authors:  Mark A Plantz; Silvia Minardi; Joseph G Lyons; Allison C Greene; David J Ellenbogen; Mitchell Hallman; Jonathan T Yamaguchi; Soyeon Jeong; Chawon Yun; Adam E Jakus; Kenneth R Blank; Robert M Havey; Muturi Muriuki; Avinash G Patwardhan; Ramille N Shah; Wellington K Hsu; Stuart R Stock; Erin L Hsu
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 10.633

Review 2.  Novel Approaches Guiding the Future of Spinal Biologics for Bone Regeneration.

Authors:  Eileen N Phan; Wellington K Hsu
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2022-04-18

3.  Preclinical Safety of a 3D-Printed Hydroxyapatite-Demineralized Bone Matrix Scaffold for Spinal Fusion.

Authors:  Mark Plantz; Joseph Lyons; Jonathan T Yamaguchi; Allison C Greene; David J Ellenbogen; Mitchell J Hallman; Vivek Shah; Chawon Yun; Adam E Jakus; Daniele Procissi; Silvia Minardi; Ramille N Shah; Wellington K Hsu; Erin L Hsu
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.