| Literature DB >> 34285511 |
Ahmad Jabir Rahyussalim1,2,3, Roni Eka Sahputra4, Menkher Manjas4, Yudan Whulanza5, Tri Kurniawati2, Dina Aprilya1, Muhammad Luqman Labib Zufar1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Some laminoplasty procedures still have restenosis because of bony-bridging failure of the laminar hinge. The present study aimed to determine the effect of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC)-enriched scaffolds on vertebral regeneration after laminoplasty on the basis of the number of osteoblasts, matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8), and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) levels.Entities:
Keywords: Hirabayashi technique; laminoplasty; mesenchymal stem cells; scaffolds
Year: 2021 PMID: 34285511 PMCID: PMC8285295 DOI: 10.2147/SCCAA.S314107
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cells Cloning ISSN: 1178-6957
Figure 1Algorithm of the research steps.
Figure 2(A) Fused Deposition Modeling Mono Mendel; (B) design of 3D-printed scaffold fabricated through PLA deposition modeling.
Figure 3Cell culture of UCMSCs (Culture day 5th, passage 4, magnification 40x).
Figure 4(A) Mesenchymal stem cells were seeded into the scaffold; (B) mesenchymal stem cells are ready to be implanted into the scaffold.
Figure 5Laminoplasty procedure using the Hirabayashi technique was conducted on the lumbar vertebrae in rabbits.
Number of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Entrapped within the Scaffolds
| Subject | Total Cells (Cells/mL) |
|---|---|
| A1 (Scaffold 1) | 0.83 × 106 |
| A2 (Scaffold 2) | 0.89 × 106 |
| A3 (Scaffold 3) | 0.53 × 106 |
| A4 (Scaffold 4) | 1.41 × 106 |
| A5 (Scaffold 5) | 1.07 × 106 |
| A6 (Scaffold 6) | 1.08 × 106 |
| B1 (Scaffold 7) | 2.14 × 106 |
| B2 (Scaffold 8) | 1.56 × 106 |
| B3 (Scaffold 9) | 0.07 × 106 |
| B4 (Scaffold 10) | 0.07 × 106 |
Figure 6Macroscopic appearance showed the variable amount of new bone formation. In the control and T1 groups, a thick granulation tissue exists without a clear laminoplasty defect. In the T2 group, scaffolds were well-embedded on the laminoplasty defect. Thicker bony bridge formation was found at the site of implantation compared with that in the T2 group.
Figure 7Hematoxylin–eosin staining to evaluate the osteoblast growth in each group. Among all groups, experimental group 3 (T3) showed more osteoblasts (black arrow).
Mean of Blood MMP-8 Level in Each Group
| Group | MMP-8 | 95% Confidence Interval for Mean | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||
| Control (C) | 112.368 | 29.34 | 80.46 | 162.32 | |
| Treatment 1 (T1) | 72.51 | 39.22 | 10.10 | 134.92 | 0.194 |
| Treatment 2 (T2) | 156.28 | 49.46 | 77.58 | 234.98 | 0.001 |
| Treatment 3 (T3) | 106.53 | 56.39 | 16.79 | 196.27 | 0.024 |
Mean of Blood TGF-β Level in Each Group
| Group | TGF-β | 95% Confidence Interval for Mean | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||
| Control (C) | 89.93 | 36.59 | 31.70 | 148.16 | |
| Treatment 1 (T1) | 111.18 | 6.35 | 101.08 | 121.28 | 0.423 |
| Treatment 2 (T2) | 101.23 | 18.47 | 71.84 | 130.62 | 0.622 |
| Treatment 3 (T3) | 94.67 | 15.94 | 69.31 | 120.03 | 0.446 |
Mean of Osteoblast Count That Grew on Laminoplasty Defect
| Group | Osteoblast Count | 95% Confidence Interval for Mean | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||
| Control (C) | 3.75 | 1.34 | 1.52 | 5.63 | |
| Treatment 1 (T1) | 4.00 | 1.26 | 1.99 | 6.01 | 1.00 |
| Treatment 2 (T2) | 7.05 | 1.92 | 3.98 | 10.11 | 1.00 |
| Treatment 3 (T3) | 18.85 | 4.76 | 11.28 | 26.42 | 0.01 |