| Literature DB >> 33331973 |
Adam T Hexter1,2, Anita Sanghani-Kerai3, Nima Heidari4, Deepak M Kalaskar3, Ashleigh Boyd3, Catherine Pendegrass3, Scott A Rodeo5, Fares S Haddad6, Gordon W Blunn7.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The effect of bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells (BMSCs) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on tendon allograft maturation in a large animal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction model was reported for the first time. It was hypothesised that compared with non-augmented ACL reconstruction, BMSCs and PRP would enhance graft maturation after 12 weeks and this would be detected using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Entities:
Keywords: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction; Autopsy; Biological modulation; Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (BMSCs); Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); Platelet-rich plasma (PRP)
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33331973 PMCID: PMC8514355 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-020-06392-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc ISSN: 0942-2056 Impact factor: 4.342
Fig. 1a Fibrin sealant at femoral aperture (arrow). b SDFT allograft soaking in PRP. c Intra-osseous injection of PRP into tibia
Criteria for the Autopsy Graft Maturation Score (out of 9)
| Score | Graft integrity | Synovial coverage and vascularisation | Graft thickness and apparent tension | Synovial sealing at tunnel apertures |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.0 | – | ≥ 75% with abundant vascularisation | – | – |
| 2.0 | No rupture | ≥ 75% without vascularisation | No elongation of a sufficiently thick graft | Circumferential sealing (> 75%) |
| 1.0 | Partial rupture | 25–74% | Partial elongation of a sufficiently thick graft or no elongation of a relatively thin graft | Moderate synovial sealing (25–75%) |
| 0 | Complete rupture | ≤ 25% | Obvious elongation of a thin graft | Low synovial sealing (< 25%) |
Fig. 2Scoring grades for intra-articular graft maturity described by Howell et al. [7]. a Grade 1 b Grade 2 c Grade 3 d Grade 4
Fig. 3Regions of interest (ROIs) for SNQ Calculation. Blue shows the graft ROI; green circle shows the PCL ROI; and orange shows the background signal
Fig. 4Scoring grades for tendon–bone healing using femoral tunnel as an example. a Grade 1 b Grade 2 c Grade 3
Fig. 5Autopsy photographs and corresponding sagittal MRI images of control (a, d), PRP (b, e), and BMSC (c, f) group. Autopsy scores, respectively, for graft integrity: synovial coverage: graft thickness/tension: incorporation at tunnel apertures. a = 2:2:0:1; b = 2:2:2:1; c = 2:3:2:2. In the control group inflammatory tissue is seen between split graft fibres (black arrow). In the PRP group the aperture is not sealed (black arrow) but the aperture is sealed in the BMSC group (black arrow). Regions of the graft appears to be more hypointense in the control and BMSC group (white arrow) but the graft is more homogenous hyperintense in the PRP group
Graft Maturation Score shown as median average (IQR)
| Criteria | Control ( | BMSC ( | PRP ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graft integrity | 2.0 (1.5–2.0) | 2.0 (2.0–2.0) | 2.0 (1.5–2.0) |
| Synovial coverage and vascularisation | 1.0 (1.0–2.0) | 2.0 (2.0–2.8) | 2.5 (1.8–2.8) |
| Graft thickness and apparent tension | 0.5 (0.0–1.0) | 1.0 (1.0–2.0) | 2.0 (1.0–2.0) |
| Sealing at bone tunnel apertures | 1.0 (0.0–1.0) | 2.0 (1.5–2.0) | 1.0 (1.0–1.5) |
| Overall Graft Maturation Score | 5.0 (3.0–5.3) | 7.0 (7.0–8.3) | 6.5 (5.8–8.3) |
Fig. 6A box and whisker plots showing scores for each variable (showing median and IQR). n = 5, Mann–Whitney test
Fig. 7Dot plots showing scores for each variable. a Graft integrity. b Synovial coverage and vascularisation. c Graft thickness and apparent length. d Incorporation at tunnel apertures. n = 5, Mann–Whitney test
Tunnel widening data (mm)
| Tunnel segment | Control ( | BMSC ( | PRP ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Femoral aperture | 3.7 (3.2–4.2) | 2.7 (2.2–3.2) | 2.7 (2.2–3.2) |
| Femoral mid-portion | 1.7 (1.2–2.2) | 2.7 (2.2–3.2) | 1.7 (1.2–2.2) |
| Femoral exit | 3.2 (3.2–3.2) | 1.7 (1.2–2.2) | 2.7 (2.2–3.2) |
| Tibial aperture | 3.7 (2.2–5.2) | 1.7 (1.2–2.2) | 1.7 (1.2–2.2) |
| Tibial mid-portion | 3.2 (2.2–4.2) | 2.2 (2.2–2.2) | 2.2 (2.2–2.2 |
| Tibial exit | 1.7 (1.2–2.2) | 2.2 (2.2–2.2 | 1.2 (1.2–1.2) |
Correlation analysis of tunnel diameter and signal noise quotient
| Diameter of tunnel segment (mm) | Signal–noise quotient (SNQ) | Graft Maturation Score (0–9) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tibia aperture | 0.34 | 0.50 | − 0.02 | 0.98 |
| Tibia mid-portion | 0.74 | 0.13 | − 0.22 | 0.60 |
| Tibia exit | 0.50 | 0.21 | − 0.36 | 0.39 |
| Femoral aperture | 0.88 | 0.03* | − 0.70 | 0.08 |
| Femoral midportion | 0.94 | 0.02* | − 0.65 | 0.12 |
| Femoral exit | 0.44 | 0.40 | − 0.34 | 0.20 |
*p < 0.05