| Literature DB >> 35497390 |
Abstract
Since articular cartilage is lacking blood vessels and nerves, its capacity to heal is extremely limited. This means that ruptured cartilage affects the joint as a whole. A health issue known as osteoarthritis can develop as a result of injury and deterioration. Osteoarthritis development can be speeded up by the widespread deterioration of articular cartilage, which ranks third on the list of musculoskeletal disorders requiring rehabilitation, behind only low back pain and broken bones. The current treatments for cartilage repair are ineffective and rarely restore full function or tissue normalcy. A promising new technology in tissue engineering may help create functional cartilage tissue substitutes. Ensuring that the cell source is loaded with bioactive molecules that promote cellular differentiation and/or maturation is the general approach. This review summarizes recent advances in cartilage tissue engineering, and recent clinical trials have been conducted to provide a comprehensive overview of the most recent research developments and clinical applications in the framework of degenerated articular cartilage and osteoarthritis.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35497390 PMCID: PMC9054483 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8670174
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Orthop ISSN: 2090-3464
Figure 1Articular cartilage tissue engineering approaches.
Representative of advantages and disadvantages of articular cartilage tissue engineering approaches.
| Articular cartilage tissue engineering approaches | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Scaffold-dependent approaches | (i) Provide 3D-microenvironment which is mimicking native articular cartilage tissue structure | (i) The long-term safety of the scaffold |
| (ii) Promote cell growth and differentiation and deliver bioactive molecules that promote chondrogenesis | (i) Undefined degradation rate | |
| (iii) Mimic the articular cartilage's mechanical properties | (iii) Potential toxic degradation of byproducts | |
| (iv) Potential of immune resistance | ||
|
| ||
| Injectable-dependent approaches | (i) Cells can be delivered to the defect site only | (i) Undefined degradation rate |
| (ii) Minimally invasive or noninvasive surgical procedures for articular cartilage regeneration | (ii) Potential toxic degradation of byproducts | |
| (iii) Potential of immune resistance | ||
| (iv) No immediate structural and biomechanical alteration | ||
|
| ||
| Cell sheet approaches | (i) Extensive cellular resources and a rapid proliferative rate and capacity for chondrogenic differentiation | (i) No immediate structural and lack of the articular cartilage's mechanical properties |
| (ii) No immune resistance | (ii) Potential disease transmission | |
| (iii) Promotes proliferation and accelerates chondrogenesis | (iii) Limitations in clinical trials experiments | |
Reprehensive clinical studies' outcomes.
| Clinical studies | Outcomes | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Infrapatellar fat pad | Both | 30 |
| Intra-articular injection of autologous stromal vascular fraction | It is possible that E7-Exo delivered KGN-enabled | 32 |
| Autologous Chondrocyte implantation (ACI) | According to the study results, long-term clinical improvement (more than 12 months postsurgery) can be achieved by combining microfracture with HA and autologous cells injection | 47 |
| Collagen type I- based scaffolds | Improved articular cartilage defect structural remodeling was achieved by using a biocompatible hydrogel | 52–55 |