Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Aug 8;19(8):e0308641. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308641

Relationship between the extent of vascular injury and the evolution of surgically induced osteochondrosis lesions in a piglet model

Ferenc Tóth 1,*, Erick O Buko 1,2, Alexandra R Armstrong 1, Casey P Johnson 1,2
Editor: Andre van Wijnen3
PMCID: PMC11309495  PMID: 39116161

Abstract

Ostechondritis dissecans (OCD) is an orthopaedic disease characterized by formation of osteochondral defects in developing joints. Epiphyseal cartilage necrosis (osteochondrosis [OC]) caused by focal failure of vascular supply is the known precursor lesion of OCD, but it remains to be established how the severity of vascular failure drives lesion healing or progression. In the current study we have implemented a novel piglet model of induced osteochondrosis of the lateral trochlear ridge of the femur to determine the role that the extent of ischemia plays in the development and progression of OC/OCD lesions. Ten 4-week-old Yorkshire piglets underwent surgical interruption of the vascular supply to the entirety (n = 4 pigs) or the distal half (n = 6 pigs) of the lateral trochlear ridge of the femur. At 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively, distal femora were evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to determine the fate of induced OC lesions. At 12 weeks, piglets were euthanized, and the surgical sites were examined histologically. After complete devascularization, lesion size increased between the 6- and 12-week MRI by an average of 24.8 mm2 (95% CI: [-2.2, 51.7]; p = 0.071). During the same period, lesion size decreased by an average of 7.6 mm2 (95% CI: [-24.5, 19.4]; p = 0.83) in piglets receiving partial devascularization. At 12 weeks, average ± SD lesion size was larger (p<0.001) in piglets undergoing complete (73.5 ± 17.6 mm2) vs. partial (16.5 ± 9.8 mm2) devascularization. Our study demonstrates how the degree of vascular interruption determines lesion size and likelihood of healing in a large animal model of trochlear OC.

Introduction

Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) is a developmental joint disorder that affects both young animals and children, particularly those engaged in athletic activities. It is characterized by formation of osteochondral flaps and/or fragments within joints and has a high propensity to progress to early onset osteoarthritis [1–5]. Clinically-apparent OCD is usually seen in children between 6 and 19 years of age [1], but precursor lesions, termed osteochondrosis (OC), have been identified in the distal femur as early as 2 years of age [6]. While the majority of precursor lesions are known to heal across species, a subset progress to clinically apparent disease [3, 7, 8]. Unfortunately, pathophysiologic processes determining the fate of OC lesions between resolution and clinical progression are yet to be elucidated, hampering patient care, as illustrated by the absence of evidence-based guidelines for the management of juvenile patients with OC/OCD [9].

The paucity of available information on the pathophysiology of OC/OCD in children, along with the lack of evidence-based treatments for the disease, can largely be explained by the difficulties associated with performing invasive studies in young human patients. In fact, most of the recent insights gained into the pathogenesis and diagnosis of OC/OCD have been inspired by studies conducted using naturally-occurring or surgically-induced animal models [8, 10–15]. Histological studies performed at OC/OCD predilection sites in joint explants obtained from asymptomatic piglets and foals have shown that discrete areas of epiphyseal cartilage necrosis (termed OC-latens), caused by focal failure of the vascular supply, are the clinically-silent precursor lesions of OCD [6, 16–18]. Delayed conversion of OC-latens lesions into bone presents as a focal failure of endochondral ossification, creating a radiographically apparent lesion known as OC-manifesta. Progression to clinically apparent OCD occurs when articular cartilage overlying these precursor lesions is unable to resist loading, leading to its collapse and fragmentation. Factors purported to contribute to lesion progression include biomechanical trauma (as suggested by the higher incidence of OCD among subjects participating in athletic activities [2, 19]), genetic factors [20], and lesion size [8].

Proof-of-principle studies conducted in horses [21] and pigs [8] along with experiments performed in goats [12, 13] have confirmed the role vascular failure plays in the pathogenesis of OC by inducing OC-latens and OC-manifesta lesions through surgical interruption of the perichondrial blood supply to the epiphyseal growth cartilage of the developing stifle (knee) joints. Unfortunately, none of these studies examined how the extent of vascular injury determines the size and clinical course of the developing lesions, leaving a critical gap in knowledge. This shortcoming is likely explained by the fact that most of these experiments targeted the femoral condyles for lesion induction, where visualization of the perichondrial blood supply, and thus its incremental interruption, is difficult. Conversely, the developing femoral trochlea with its comparatively simple surgical access and a well-defined, visible perichondral vasculature [21] represents an optimal location for graded devascularization.

In the study reported here, we have implemented a novel piglet model of surgically induced osteochondrosis of the lateral trochlear ridge of the femur to determine how the extent of vascular injury affects the development and progression of OC/OCD lesions. We hypothesized that surgical interruption of the vascular supply limited to the distal 50% of the lateral trochlear ridge will result in the formation of small OC-latens lesions which will undergo spontaneous resolution, whereas devascularization of the entirety of the lateral trochlear ridge will lead to the development of large OC-latens lesions that will progress to extensive OC-manifesta and, occasionally, to clinically apparent OCD.

Materials and methods

Design

Domestic Yorkshire piglets (n = 10) aged 4 weeks were enrolled in this study. The study protocol was approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol #: 2203–39910). After a 3-day acclimation period, piglets underwent surgical interruption of the vascular supply to the entirety (n = 4 pigs) or the distal half (n = 6 pigs) of the lateral trochlear ridge of the distal femur in a randomly selected pelvic limb. The contralateral limbs served as unoperated controls. At 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively, piglets received in vivo MRIs to monitor development and progression or resolution of induced OC lesions. At the conclusion of the 12-week MRI, piglets were euthanized and their stifle joints were harvested for histologic processing.

Surgery

Piglets were premedicated with a combination of Telazol (4 mg/Kg), xylazine (2 mg/Kg) and buprenorphine (0.02 mg/Kg) administered intramuscularly and were orotracheally intubated. General anesthesia was maintained by inhalation of isoflurane vaporized in oxygen. After routine preparation for aseptic surgery, a randomly selected stifle joint was approached using an 8 cm long medial parapatellar skin incision. The femoropatellar joint was entered using a lateral parapatellar incision and the patella was luxated medially to expose the femoral trochlea. Using a #15 blade, the vascular supply to the entirety (n = 4 pigs) or the distal half (n = 6 pigs) of the epiphyseal cartilage of the lateral trochlear ridge was interrupted by resecting a corresponding segment of the perichondrium from the abaxial aspect of the lateral trochlear ridge containing the nutrient vessels (Fig 1). Hemostasis was provided by pressing a sterile 4×4 gauze over the exposed bone, and the joint was lavaged with sterile saline solution. At the conclusion of the procedure, the incision was closed in layers and piglets were allowed to recover from general anesthesia.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Intraoperative images showing: (A) the intact perichondrial vasculature (white arrows) of the lateral trochlear ridge; (B) complete devascularization of the lateral trochlear ridge (area marked with dashed line) after resection of perichondrium and the nutrient vessels contained within; and (C) partial devascularization of the lateral trochlear ridge (area marked by dashed line) and the intact proximal portion of the nutrient vessel (white arrow).

MRI

Anesthetized piglets underwent in vivo MRI at 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively. Piglets were positioned in dorsal recumbency in a 3T MRI scanner (MAGNETOM Prisma; Siemens Healthcare). An 18-channel ultraflex receiver coil was placed over the bilateral stifles for signal reception (with the exception that a 4-channel flex coil was used for the 2-week postoperative MRI studies of piglets 1 and 2). Each stifle was imaged individually as part of the same imaging session using the same protocol. Imaging sequences included: (i) quantitative T2 relaxation time mapping using a multi-slice multi-echo (MSME) spin echo sequence to identify OC-latens lesions in the epiphyseal cartilage; (ii) high-resolution 3D DESS to identify OC-manifesta lesions; and, following these sequences, (iii) subtracted contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) using a 3D GRE sequence acquired both before and one minute after intravenous administration of 0.2 mmol/kg gadoteridol contrast agent (ProHance; Bracco) to assess the extent of ischemia in the epiphyseal cartilage at the 2-week post-operative time point. Imaging parameters are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. MRI scan parameters for one stifle.

MSME T2 Map 3D DESS Subtracted 3D CE-MRI
Field of view (mm3) 128×128×50 128×128×48 128×128×64
Sampling matrix 384×384×25 384×384×160 320×320×160
Resolution (mm3) 0.3×0.3×2.0 0.3×0.3×0.3 0.4×0.4×0.4
TR / TEs (ms) 4000 / [11.5, 23.0, 34.5, 46.0, 57.5, 69.0, 80.5, 92.0] 22.9 / 7.5 7.9 / 3.5
Flip angle (°) 90/180 25 25
Bandwidth (Hz/px) 250 128 250
Fat settings Fat saturation Water excitation -
Scan time (min) 16 16 5.5 (×2 scans)
Open in a new tab

Scan parameters are for the 2- and 6-week post-operative time points (6- and 10-week-old piglets). To accommodate the larger size of the piglets at the 12-week post-operative time point (16-week-old piglets), the field-of-view for the T2 map was increased to 140×140×50 mm3 (giving 0.4×0.4×2.0 mm3 resolution) and the field-of-view for the 3D DESS was increased to 140×140×64 mm3 (giving 0.4×0.4×0.4 mm3 resolution); all other scan parameters were fixed. The subtracted CE-MRI sequence was only acquired for the 2-week post-operative time point.

Histology

Distal femoral specimens were fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin for 72h, then the femoral trochleae were removed in toto from the parent bone and immersed in 10% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid for decalcification. Decalcified specimens were serially sectioned in the sagittal plane into three to four 2.0 mm thick slabs that spanned the total width of the trochlea including the trochlear ridge and any grossly apparent lesion. Individual slabs were processed into paraffin blocks for histological evaluation. At least two 5-μm-thick sections were collected from the surface of each slab (n = 6 to 8 sections/trochlea) and stained with hematoxylin & eosin (H&E). Histological sections were assessed by a blinded, board-certified veterinary pathologist (ARA) with experience in musculoskeletal pathology. OC-latens lesions were defined as areas of chondronecrosis associated with necrotic vascular profiles that were confined to the epiphyseal cartilage [22]. OC-manifesta lesions were defined as areas of chondronecrosis in the epiphyseal cartilage that were accompanied by a delay in endochondral ossification [22]. Lesions were classified as OCD if they had the characteristics of OC-manifesta lesions accompanied by the presence of an osteochondral flap or fragment involving the articular surface.

Data analysis

T2 relaxation time maps were generated offline using MATLAB (version 2023b; Mathworks) by fitting the echo time images to a mono-exponential signal decay model. Prior to fitting, the echo time images were denoised using TNORDIC to improve image quality [23] and the first echo time image was removed to reduce the influence of stimulated echoes. Subtracted CE-MRI images were generated by subtracting the pre-contrast 3D GRE scan from the identical post-contrast scan. CE-MRI studies were visually assessed to ensure potential motion did not result in misalignment between the pre- and post-contrast MR images.

For each trochlea, the MRI slice exhibiting the largest lesion in T2 relaxation time maps, as corroborated by the 3D DESS images, was determined. The lesion area on the slice was segmented and measured using ITK-SNAP (version 3.8.0; www.itksnap.org) [24]. Specifically, lesion segmentations were performed independently by two experienced investigators (FT and EOB), and one investigator repeated the segmentation, such that three lesion area measurements were made. The average of these three results was then reported for each trochlea.

The age and bodyweight of piglets at the time of the 12-week MRI study was compared between treatment groups using a two-tailed, unpaired t test. Lesion sizes were compared between and within treatment groups at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively using a linear mixed effects model, with week, treatment, and their interaction as fixed effects, and animal as a random effect. Means and standard deviations are reported for each combination, along with pairwise comparisons for both treatments within week and weeks within treatment, with all p-values and confidence intervals adjusted using the Bonferroni-Sidak method. Given the small sample size and the multiple comparisons of interest, we chose to follow the guidelines in the 2019 American Statistician editorial [25] and not declare a predefined level of significance, but instead choose to “focus on the effect size and the uncertainty [to] help the reader understand the findings”.

Results

Mean ± SD age and weight of piglets at the time of surgery were 30.8 ± 3.3 days and 6.0 ± 1.1 kg. All surgical procedures were successfully completed without any complications. Qualitative evaluation of CE-MRI findings obtained 2 weeks postoperatively were consistent with localized ischemia of the lateral trochlear epiphyseal cartilage in 4/4 and 4/6 piglets undergoing complete and partial devascularization, respectively. Data obtained from these piglets with confirmed complete (piglets # 1–4) and partial ischemia (piglets # 5–8) were used to compare lesion sizes between treatment groups using the 6- and 12-week MRI findings. At the time of the 12-week MRI evaluation, the mean ± SD age of piglets receiving complete vs. partial devascularization was nearly identical at 115.8 ± 1.0 vs. 114.2 ± 3.8 days (p = 0.442). At the same timepoint, piglets appeared heavier in the complete devascularization group with a mean ± SD bodyweight of 57.3 ± 14.0 kg vs. 46.5 ± 9.7 kg for piglets undergoing partial devascularization; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.1858).

At 2 weeks postoperatively, qualitative analysis of CE-MRI findings and T2 maps were consistent with the presence of larger lesions in pigs undergoing complete vs. partial devascularization, but indistinct borders of the lesions did not permit quantitative comparisons. By 6 weeks after surgery, lesion borders became better defined, enabling consistent measurement of induced OC-latens lesions in the T2 maps (Table 2, Figs 2–5); mean ± SD lesion area in pigs undergoing complete devascularization was 48.8 ± 6.7 mm2, consistent with an observed average difference of 24.7 mm2 (95% CI: [-0.3, 49.8]; p = 0.053) when compared to partial devascularization (24.0 ± 11.4 mm2). During the MRI examination conducted 12 weeks post-operatively, mean ± SD lesion area measurements obtained from T2 maps were greater in size in piglets receiving complete devascularization (73.5 ± 17.6 mm2) compared to their measurements obtained at 6 weeks, by an average of 24.8 mm2 (95% CI: [-2.2, 51.7]; p = 0.071), and also greater in size than measurements obtained in piglets 12 week after partial devascularization of the lateral trochleae, by an average of 57.1 mm2 (95% CI: [23.1, 82.1]; p<0.001). Conversely, in pigs undergoing partial devascularization, mean ± SD lesion size at 12 weeks after surgery remained similar (n = 2) or moderately decreased (n = 2) relative to that measured at 6 weeks, with an average change of -7.6 mm2 (95% CI: [-24.5, 19.4]; p = 0.83).

Table 2. Osteochondrosis lesion sizes.

Pig # Devascularization Lesion size [mm2] Histology
6 weeks post-op 12 weeks post-op
1 complete 42.6 63.0 OCM
2 complete 56.6 99.3 OCM
3 complete 43.8 70.2 OCM
4 complete 52.3 61.6 OCM
mean ± SD 48.8 ± 6.7 73.5 ± 17.6
5 partial 18.3 23.0 OCM
6 partial 25.6 26.7 OCM
7 partial 39.3 7.2 OCM
8 partial 13.1 9.0 OCM
mean ± SD 24.0 ± 11.4 16.5 ± 9.8
9 partial NSF NSF OCM
10 partial NSF NSF NSF
Open in a new tab

Measurements were taken in T2 maps at 6 and 12 weeks after partial or complete devascularization of the lateral trochlear ridge of the femur in ten piglets. Lesion types observed on histology at 12 weeks postoperatively are indicated in the last column (OCM: OC-manifesta; NSF: no significant finding).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

T2 cartilage maps (A-C), subtracted CE-MRI image (D), and 3D DESS images (E and F) obtained 2, 6, and 12 weeks after complete devascularization of the lateral trochlear ridge in piglet 2. Dotted line in the subtracted CE-MRI image (D) marks the extent of hypoperfusion. Arrowheads identify a large OC-latens (B and E) and a subsequent OC-manifesta (C and F) lesion. Photomicrograph shows the histologic appearance of the extensive OC-manifesta lesion (dashed line) at 12 weeks postoperatively.

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

T2 cartilage maps (A-C), subtracted CE-MRI image (D), and 3D DESS images (E and F) obtained 2, 6, and 12 weeks after partial devascularization of the lateral trochlear ridge in piglet 8. Dotted line in the subtracted CE-MRI image (D) marks the extent of hypoperfusion. Arrowheads identify a small OC-latens (B) and a subsequent healing OC-manifesta (C and F) lesion. Photomicrograph shows the histologic appearance of the healing OC-manifesta lesion (dashed line) at 12 weeks postoperatively. A small OC lesion involving the growth plate (dotted line) is also apparent on histology but not observed on MRI.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

T2 cartilage maps (A-C), subtracted CE-MRI image (D), and 3D DESS images (E and F) obtained 2, 6, and 12 weeks after complete devascularization of the lateral trochlear ridge in piglet 4. Dotted line in the subtracted CE-MRI image (D) marks the extent of hypoperfusion. Arrowheads identify a large OC-latens (B and E) and a subsequent OC-manifesta (C and F) lesion. Photomicrograph shows the histologic appearance of a large OC-manifesta lesion (dashed line) at 12 weeks postoperatively.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

T2 cartilage maps (A-C), subtracted CE-MRI image (D), and 3D DESS images (E and F) obtained 2, 6, and 12 weeks after partial devascularization of the lateral trochlear ridge in piglet 5. Dotted line in the subtracted CE-MRI image (D) marks the extent of hypoperfusion. Arrowheads identify a small OC-latens (B) and a subsequent healing OC-manifesta (C and F) lesion. Photomicrograph shows the histologic appearance of the healing OC-manifesta lesion (dashed line) at 12 weeks postoperatively.

Histological findings obtained 12 weeks after surgical induction of complete or partial ischemia of the lateral trochlear ridge were consistent with the MRI findings in all but 1 piglet (piglet #9). Large OC-manifesta lesions involving most of the lateral trochlear ridge were present in piglets receiving complete devascularization. In 4 piglets undergoing partial devascularization, OC-manifesta lesions were small, nearly completely surrounded by subchondral bone, including one piglet where MRI did not identify any lesions (piglet #9). One of the two remaining piglets receiving partial devascularization (piglet #6) had a medium sized OC-manifesta lesion involving a substantial portion of the epiphyseal cartilage consistent with the MRI findings, whereas in the other piglet (piglet #10) no significant histologic or MRI findings were noted (Fig 6). In all OC-manifesta lesions, retention of necrotic cartilage matrix within the epiphyseal cartilage overlying the area of delayed endochondral ossification was apparent. Adjacent to these affected areas, normal epiphyseal cartilage had few remaining intact vascular canals along with small numbers of chondrified and/or chondrifying vascular canals.

Fig 6. Representative histological images of all 10 piglets obtained 12 weeks after they underwent complete or partial devascularization of the lateral trochlear ridge of the femur.

Fig 6

Open in a new tab

Complete devascularization in Piglets # 1, 2, 3 and 4 led to the formation of extensive OC-manifesta lesions involving most of the lateral trochlear ridge. After partial devascularization, Piglet # 6 developed a medium sized OC-manifesta lesion involving a substantial portion of the epiphyseal cartilage; Piglets # 5, 7, 8, and 9 had healing OC-manifesta lesions nearly completely surrounded by bone; and Piglet # 10 had no apparent lesion on histology. Lesions are marked with black arrows.

Neither MRI nor histology identified any lesions in the contralateral unoperated control limbs.

Discussion

In the current study, we have successfully implemented a novel large animal model of OC through surgical interruption of the vascular supply to the epiphyseal cartilage of the lateral trochlear ridge of the femur using 4-week-old piglets. Our results obtained from this model demonstrate that increasing the extent of vascular injury is associated with the development of larger OC-latens lesions, which over time progress to extensive OC-manifesta lesions. Conversely, lesions induced by a more limited vascular injury result in smaller OC-latens and OC-manifesta lesions that are gradually incorporated in the subchondral bone by 12 weeks postoperatively as they undergo resolution.

The overwhelming majority of previous studies using an animal model to investigate the pathophysiology of osteochondrosis concentrated on the femoral condyles [8, 12, 13, 26, 27], the primary predilection site of OCD in children [1]. Studies conducted in goats using vascular interruption alone [12], or in combination with a controlled exercise regimen [13], were successful in inducing OC-latens lesions that progressed to small OC-manifesta lesions over time. Nevertheless, most of these induced lesions were comparatively small, and with a rare exception, underwent partial or complete resolution by 12 weeks postoperatively. A unique vascular architecture supplying the distal femoral epiphyseal cartilage in goats, starkly different from that seen in children [11], was suspected to drive the hastened healing process, and motivated a shift away from this species.

Follow-up investigations into the vascular supply of the epiphyseal growth cartilage at OCD predilection sites [8, 11, 28] identified (miniature) pigs as the ideal species to model OCD based on their shared distal femoral microvascular architecture with children [8, 11]. Notwithstanding the similarities in vascular anatomy, a subsequent study attempting to induce OCD lesions by interrupting the blood supply to the medial and lateral femoral condyles in juvenile miniature pigs was met with limited success, as all but one lesion were nearly or completely resolved by 10 weeks postoperatively. Furthermore, induced lesions were small, bringing their clinical importance into question, a likely consequence of a limited surgical access to the axial and abaxial vascular beds of the femoral condyles. These findings provided a strong impetus to target lesion induction to an alternative site in the stifle joint, which gained further support based on a previous proof-of-principle study that demonstrated successful induction of OCD-like lesions in the femoral trochlea in foals [21]. Indeed, perichondrial vessels supplying the developing femoral trochlea are visible on the abaxial aspect of the lateral trochlear ridge in pigs, lending themselves to relatively simple surgical interruption as demonstrated in the current study. Additionally, piglets also represent an economical alternative to foals, increasing the likelihood of adoption of the proposed model.

Importantly, a simple surgical access combined with the apparent visibility of perichondrial vasculature also allowed us to control the extent of induced ischemia. Considering the proximo-distal direction of blood flow, we were able to induce ischemia of the entirety or the distal half of the trochlea by interrupting the vessels either at the proximal extent or at the midpoint of the lateral trochlear ridge, respectively. This approach enabled us to investigate the role the extent of ischemia plays in the development, progression, and/or resolution of OC. Our findings are in line with the anecdotal evidence that small lesions are more likely to resolve, whereas large lesions tend to persist or further increase in size resulting in extensive OC-manifesta lesions, which is likely associated with an increased vulnerability to biomechanical trauma.

It has been purported that conversion of subclinical OC-manifesta lesions to clinically apparent OCD is promoted by exposure to biomechanical trauma, as suggested by an increased incidence of OCD in athletes [2, 3]. In our previous study, we attempted to evaluate the role of biomechanical trauma in the clinical progression of surgically induced OC lesions using a goat model, but differences in the vascular architecture and small lesion size interfered with our efforts [13]. Due to their large size and propensity to persist, OC-manifesta lesions of the lateral trochlear ridge induced in the current study represent an excellent opportunity to further explore the effects of biomechanical stress on the development of clinically apparent OCD lesions. For example, the superficial location of the lesion immediately beneath the patella will allow evaluation of the differences that compressive vs. shear forces (antero-posterior vs. latero-lateral impact) may have on the progression or resolution of OC-manifesta lesions.

Along with its many inherent advantages, the trochlear location of the induced lesions may also be perceived as a weakness of our study, given that this area is less frequently involved in naturally occurring OCD in children than the femoral condyles. Nevertheless, translation of findings obtained from the proposed model to human patients will not be limited to the less frequently seen trochlear lesions [1], but will also apply to femoral condylar OCD, due to the shared etiology and pathogenesis of OCD across its predilection sites [20]. Another limitation of the study is the insufficient follow-up period to allow complete healing and/or clinical progression to occur. The absence of other predisposing factors (e.g., biomechanical trauma) likely contributed to our failure to observe clinical progression of lesions induced by complete devascularization, even though their size and MRI and histologic appearance are highly suggestive that at least a subset may have eventually formed osteochondral flaps and/or fragments as typically occurs in clinical disease. Lastly, while the low number of piglets enrolled in the study prevented us from conclusively showing how lesion size changes over time within groups, it was sufficient to demonstrate that more extensive vascular injury will result in a larger precursor lesion by 12 weeks postoperatively.

Taken together, our study provides new evidence that the extent of vascular injury determines lesion size, which is in turn an important factor in determining the fate of induced OC-latens lesions, with small lesions showing signs of resolution over time and large lesions progressing to extensive OC-manifesta. Additionally, we also describe a novel piglet model of trochlear OC that will allow opening new lines of investigations into the pathophysiology of OC/OCD.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(XLSX)

pone.0308641.s001.xlsx (13.9KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Drs. Cathy Carlson and Aaron Rendahl for their invaluable contribution to the study design, interpretation of histological findings and statistical analysis of our data. We also thank the members of the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine Clinical Investigation Center for their assistance with the surgical procedures as well as Paula Overn and Katalin Kovacs, PhD for their help with histological processing of harvested specimens.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by grants from the NIH/NIAMS (R56 AR078209) and NIH/OD (K01OD034070). The sponsors had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References

  • 1.Kessler JI, Nikizad H, Shea KG, Jacobs JC Jr., Bebchuk JD, Weiss JM. The demographics and epidemiology of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee in children and adolescents. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(2):320–6. doi: 10.1177/0363546513510390 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Edmonds EW, Polousky J. A review of knowledge in osteochondritis dissecans: 123 years of minimal evolution from Konig to the ROCK study group. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(4):1118–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kocher MS, Tucker R, Ganley TJ, Flynn JM. Management of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: current concepts review. The American journal of sports medicine. 2006;34(7):1181–91. doi: 10.1177/0363546506290127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Adachi N, Deie M, Nakamae A, Okuhara A, Kamei G, Ochi M. Functional and radiographic outcomes of unstable juvenile osteochondritis dissecans of the knee treated with lesion fixation using bioabsorbable pins. J Pediatr Orthop. 2015;35(1):82–8. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Aurich M, Anders J, Trommer T, Liesaus E, Seifert M, Schömburg J, et al. Histological and cell biological characterization of dissected cartilage fragments in human osteochondritis dissecans of the femoral condyle. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2006;126(9):606–14. doi: 10.1007/s00402-006-0125-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tóth F, Tompkins MA, Shea KG, Ellermann JM, Carlson CS. Identification of Areas of Epiphyseal Cartilage Necrosis at Predilection Sites of Juvenile Osteochondritis Dissecans in Pediatric Cadavers. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(24):2132–9. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tóth F, Torrison JL, Harper L, Bussieres D, Wilson ME, Crenshaw TD, et al. Osteochondrosis prevalence and severity at 12 and 24 weeks of age in commercial pigs with and without organic-complexed trace mineral supplementation. J Anim Sci. 2016;94(9):3817–25. doi: 10.2527/jas.2015-9950 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tóth F, Johnson CP, Mills B, Nissi MJ, Nykänen O, Ellermann J, et al. Evaluation of the Suitability of Miniature Pigs as an Animal Model of Juvenile Osteochondritis Dissecans. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(10):2130–7. doi: 10.1002/jor.24353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chambers HG, Shea KG, Anderson AF, Jojo Brunelle TJ, Carey JL, Ganley TJ, et al. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on: the diagnosis and treatment of osteochondritis dissecans. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(14):1322–4. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.9414ebo [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nissi MJ, Toth F, Zhang J, Schmitter S, Benson M, Carlson CS, et al. Susceptibility weighted imaging of cartilage canals in porcine epiphyseal growth cartilage ex vivo and in vivo. Magn Reson Med. 2014;71(6):2197–205. doi: 10.1002/mrm.24863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Toth F, Nissi MJ, Ellermann JM, Wang LN, Shea KG, Polousky J, et al. Novel Application of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Demonstrates Characteristic Differences in Vasculature at Predilection Sites of Osteochondritis Dissecans. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2015;43(10):2522–7. doi: 10.1177/0363546515596410 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Toth F, Nissi MJ, Wang L, Ellermann JM, Carlson CS. Surgical induction, histological evaluation, and MRI identification of cartilage necrosis in the distal femur in goats to model early lesions of osteochondrosis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015;23(2):300–7. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2014.11.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tóth F, David FH, LaFond E, Wang L, Ellermann JM, Carlson CS. In vivo visualization using MRI T2 mapping of induced osteochondrosis and osteochondritis dissecans lesions in goats undergoing controlled exercise. J Orthop Res. 2017;35(4):868–75. doi: 10.1002/jor.23332 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wang L, Nissi MJ, Toth F, Shaver J, Johnson CP, Zhang J, et al. Multiparametric MRI of Epiphyseal Cartilage Necrosis (Osteochondrosis) with Histological Validation in a Goat Model. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140400. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140400 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wang L, Nissi MJ, Toth F, Johnson CP, Garwood M, Carlson CS, et al. Quantitative susceptibility mapping detects abnormalities in cartilage canals in a goat model of preclinical osteochondritis dissecans. Magn Reson Med. 2017;77(3):1276–83. doi: 10.1002/mrm.26214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Olstad K, Ytrehus B, Ekman S, Carlson CS, Dolvik NI. Epiphyseal cartilage canal blood supply to the tarsus of foals and relationship to osteochondrosis. Equine Vet J. 2008;40(1):30–9. doi: 10.2746/042516407X239836 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Olstad K, Shea KG, Cannamela PC, Polousky JD, Ekman S, Ytrehus B, et al. Juvenile osteochondritis dissecans of the knee is a result of failure of the blood supply to growth cartilage and osteochondrosis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018;26(12):1691–8. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2018.06.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ytrehus B, Andreas Haga H, Mellum CN, Mathisen L, Carlson CS, Ekman S, et al. Experimental ischemia of porcine growth cartilage produces lesions of osteochondrosis. Journal of orthopaedic research: official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society. 2004;22(6):1201–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cahill BR. Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee: Treatment of Juvenile and Adult Forms. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1995;3(4):237–47. doi: 10.5435/00124635-199507000-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.McCoy AM, Toth F, Dolvik NI, Ekman S, Ellermann J, Olstad K, et al. Articular osteochondrosis: a comparison of naturally-occurring human and animal disease. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(11):1638–47. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2013.08.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Olstad K, Hendrickson EH, Carlson CS, Ekman S, Dolvik NI. Transection of vessels in epiphyseal cartilage canals leads to osteochondrosis and osteochondrosis dissecans in the femoro-patellar joint of foals; a potential model of juvenile osteochondritis dissecans. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(5):730–8. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2013.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ytrehus B, Carlson CS, Ekman S. Etiology and pathogenesis of osteochondrosis. Vet Pathol. 2007;44(4):429–48. doi: 10.1354/vp.44-4-429 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Moeller S, Buko EO, Parvaze SP, Dowdle L, Ugurbil K, Johnson CP, et al. Locally low-rank denoising in transform domains. bioRxiv. 2023. doi: 10.1101/2023.11.21.568193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, Smith RG, Ho S, Gee JC, et al. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage. 2006;31(3):1116–28. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a World Beyond “p < 0.05”. The American Statistician. 2019;73(sup1):1–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Carlson CS, Meuten DJ, Richardson DC. Ischemic necrosis of cartilage in spontaneous and experimental lesions of osteochondrosis. J Orthop Res. 1991;9(3):317–29. doi: 10.1002/jor.1100090303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pfeifer CG, Kinsella SD, Milby AH, Fisher MB, Belkin NS, Mauck RL, et al. Development of a Large Animal Model of Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee: A Pilot Study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2015;3(2):2325967115570019. doi: 10.1177/2325967115570019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tóth F, Nissi MJ, Armstrong AR, Buko EO, Johnson CP. Epiphyseal cartilage vascular architecture at the distal humeral osteochondritis dissecans predilection site in juvenile pigs. J Orthop Res. 2024; 42(3):737–744. doi: 10.1002/jor.25732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Andre van Wijnen

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

25 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-17211Relationship Between the Extent of Vascular Injury and the Evolution of Surgically Induced Osteochondrosis Lesions in a Piglet Model.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Toth,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that comprehensively addresses the minor points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 09 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andre van Wijnen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "We are grateful to Drs. Cathy Carlson and Aaron Rendahl for their invaluable contribution to the study design, interpretation of histological findings and statistical analysis of our data. We also thank the members of the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine Clinical Investigation Center for their assistance with the surgical procedures as well as Paula Overn and Katalin Kovacs, PhD for their help with histological processing of harvested specimens. This study was funded by grants from the NIH/NIAMS (R56 AR078209) and NIH/OD (K01OD034070). The sponsors had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "This study was funded by grants from the NIH/NIAMS (R56 AR078209) and NIH/OD (K01OD034070). The sponsors had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files."

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a good researched and well written manuscript describing a novel piglet model of very rare but debilitating disease - osteochondritis dissecans. Authors explore the role of extent of vascular injury in the pathophysiology of OCD. I only have a few minor suggestions for improvement and clarification that should be addressed before publishing this article in PLOS ONE. See my comments below:

1) Intro – ln 43: please flip the order to “both young animals and children, particularly…”. I believe authors refer to children rather ten animals engaged in athletic activities.

2) Methods / MRI – ln 127: It seems that two different flex coils were used to accommodate imaging of larger pigs at 12 weeks. I would recommend stating this fact in the Methods section.

3) Methods / MRI – ln 133: Please provide more info on CE-MRI. What was the contrast dose administered? Were CE images acquired after the acquisition of DESS and T2 images? What was the time delay before contrast injection and start of post-CE MRI?

4) Methods / Data analysis – ln 166: Were pre- and post-contrast MR images registered before calculating the subtraction image? This was in vivo scan. Although the subtracted CE-MR images were analyzed only qualitatively, it would be helpful to describe measures taken to account for potential motion between the pre- and post-CE MRI.

5) Results - ln 212: change “the same” to more fitting “similar”.

6) Results - ln 255: authors probably meant “(piglet #9)” instead of “(piglet #6)”.

7) References #23, #27 and #28 seems incomplete; please check.

8) Figures 2E,F; 3F; 4F; 5F – please change contrast in these images to better depict cartilage and lesions. Figure 3E looks so much better than 2E.

9) Figure 6 - Please add arrows pointing to OCD lesions.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting and well performed study, which demonstrates that a total vascular interruption to the trochlea ridge of femur will cause larger cartilage lesions than a partial vascular insult. The surgical procedure with a control of the extent of induced ischemia to the growth cartilage of the femoral trochlear is ingenious.

The hypothesis is clear and it is unlikely to expect a different outcome. The physiological laws that an insult to a larger vascular bed should cause a larger infarct seems obvious. But as stated in the discussion (line 308) it is “anecdotal evidence”.

The data shows that the lesions after a partial devascularization is indeed smaller, but also decrease over time which is the most important finding. It would have been even more interesting to follow the piglets longer, with MR images, to see if the lesions eventually would disappear completely in this group and if the larger lesion would have developed into OCD.

Below see a few suggestions/concerns on the manuscript

Specific comments to the authors:

The abstract is clearly written and describes the study. I think a more precise description of the breed of “novel piglet model” could be added already in the abstract.

Suggestion: Line 29-30….Ten 4-week-old Yorkshire piglets underwent…..

The introduction describes the relevant known knowledge of the disease, including accurate references, about osteochondrosis. The author’s hypothesis is clear. They want to demonstrate that partial vascular interruption will cause small OC lesions and that they will decrease in size over time. An interruption of the entire vascularization to the lateral trochlea will cause larger OC lesions that increase in size and develop into OC-manifesta.

Material & Methods.

The description of the material and methods are clear, with a few clarifications suggested.

Line 149: … sectioned into serial 2,0 mm thick slabs that spanned the total width of the trochlea… How many slabs did this result in from each trochlea?

Line 150: Out of these, two 5-µm-thick slabs were processed for histology from each surface of the 2-mm slab. How many histologic sections were evaluated from each trochlea?

The OCM on histology were graded in size (result-section). Small, moderate? Large? Measured?

Data analysis: I am not an expert in this field, hence these analysis and results must be evaluated by another referee. The sample size is small, but the data appear to be consistent and Table 2 clearly shows difference in size between the groups, which is not surprising.

Results:

The description of results are mostly clear. I only have a few questions/concerns.

The weight and exact age of the pigs at the time of surgery is stated in line 189.

How much did the different groups weigh at euthanasia and were all 12,0 weeks?

Is it possible to define the histologic OCM size more precisely?

Small, medium and large sized OCM? Perhaps add a description of the different sizes more clearly in the legends to figure 6, then the reader will understand the different sizes more clearly. The following description could be used in fig. 6: Line 251: large OCM = “most of the lateral trochlear ridge. Line 253: Small= nearly completely surrounded by bone. Line 255: Medium OCM = a substantial portion of the cartilage.

The exact size of the MRI lesions are more precise, since they are measured.

What did the growth cartilage, overlying the OCM look like? Was there resolved vascularization, total disappearance of vessels with chondrification or still a large OCLatens, with necrotic cartilage? Did the control side (not operated) still show vascularization at 12-weeks or a complete lack of vessels or chondrificaiton?

Was the overlying non-vascularized articular cartilage affected at all in the operated side?

Discussion:

The surgical procedure with a control of the extent of induced ischemia to the growth cartilage of the femoral trochlear is ingenious and opens up for more research into OC.

Lines 319-322: The discussion about the different forces (compression and shear) involved in the progression of OCM to OCD is of great importance, and can hopefully be addressed using the presented piglet model.

The authors do discuss the limitations of the study, low number of pigs, the lack of the follow up to healing or development of an OCD and the location of the femoral trochlea instead of the condyles, more predisposed in humans. However in equines, the femoral trochlea is predisposed to OCD with subsequent clinical lameness, hence I think it is of value to also explore this location.

References:

It does include the relevant references

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Aug 8;19(8):e0308641. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308641.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

8 Jul 2024

Response to reviewers

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their thorough work. Their comments were instrumental in helping the authors to improve on the original submission in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1

“This is a good researched and well written manuscript describing a novel piglet model of very rare but debilitating disease - osteochondritis dissecans. Authors explore the role of extent of vascular injury in the pathophysiology of OCD. I only have a few minor suggestions for improvement and clarification that should be addressed before publishing this article in PLOS ONE. See my comments below”

R1.1: Reviewer’s comment: L42 - Please flip the order to “both young animals and children, particularly…”. I believe authors refer to children rather then animals engaged in athletic activities.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment, the text has been changed to reflect your suggestion.

Changes made in manuscript: L42-43: “Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) is a developmental joint disorder that affects both young animals and children, particularly…”

R1.2: Reviewer’s comment: L127 - It seems that two different flex coils were used to accommodate imaging of larger pigs at 12 weeks. I would recommend stating this fact in the Methods section.

Authors’ response: All but two MRI studies were acquired using an 18-channel ultraflex receiver coil. The first two piglets had their 2-week post op MRI study conducted using a 4-channel flex coil, as we had yet to acquire the 18-channel ultraflex one. The 18-channel ultraflex coil was used for the rest of the studies for its improved signal-to-noise ratio.

Changes made in manuscript: L127-129: “An 18-channel ultraflex receiver coil was placed over the bilateral stifles for signal reception (with the exception that a 4-channel flex coil was used for the 2-week postoperative MRI studies of piglets 1 and 2).

R1.3: Reviewer’s comment: L133 - Please provide more info on CE-MRI. What was the contrast dose administered? Were CE images acquired after the acquisition of DESS and T2 images? What was the time delay before contrast injection and start of post-CE MRI?

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. CE images were acquired after the DESS and T2 images. There was a one-minute delay between the contrast injection (0.2 mmol/kg gadoteridol [ProHance; Bracco]) and the start of the post-CE MRI.

Changes made in manuscript: L133-138: “and, following these sequences, (iii) subtracted contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) using a 3D GRE sequence acquired both before and one minute after intravenous administration of 0.2 mmol/kg gadoteridol contrast agent (ProHance; Bracco) to assess the extent of ischemia…”

R1.4: Reviewer’s comment: L166 - Were pre- and post-contrast MR images registered before calculating the subtraction image? This was in vivo scan. Although the subtracted CE-MR images were analyzed only qualitatively, it would be helpful to describe measures taken to account for potential motion between the pre- and post-CE MRI.

Authors’ response: The subtracted images were visually assessed for any misalignments that could have been caused by potential motion between the pre- and post-CE MRI. No such motion was observed for any of the acquisitions.

Changes made in manuscript: L172-173: “CE-MRI studies were visually assessed to ensure potential motion did not result in misalignment between the pre- and post-contrast MR images.”

R1.5: Reviewer’s comment: L212 - change “the same” to more fitting “similar”

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment, the text has been changed to reflect your suggestion.

Changes made in manuscript: L224: “…after surgery remained similar (n = 2) or moderately decreased (n = 2) relative to…”

R1.6: Reviewer’s comment: L255 - authors probably meant “(piglet #9)” instead of “(piglet #6).

Authors’ response: Thank you for the comment. We believe that the piglet numbers are correctly referenced here. Of 6 piglets that underwent partial devascularization, 4 piglets had very small OC-manifesta lesions (including piglet #9 whose lesion was inapparent on MRI). No lesions were found either histologically or on MRI in piglet #10. Conversely, piglet #6 had a medium sized OCM lesion. We believe that these findings can also be observed in Figure 6. Please let us know if we are overlooking something here.

Changes made in manuscript: L273: No changes were made here.

R1.7: Reviewer’s comment: References - #23, #27 and #28 seems incomplete; please check

Authors’ response: Thank you for your suggestion. The above references have been double checked. Reference #28 was in print at the time of the submission of the original manuscript. It is now published, and the reference was updated with all the available new information. Reference #27 was published in an online journal; therefore, page numbers are not available. Nevertheless, this reference was supplemented with a doi number to ease its identification. Reference #23 is a preprint document, so there is limited information available but a doi number has also been added to the original reference.

Changes made in manuscript: references:

“23. Moeller S, Buko EO, Parvaze SP, Dowdle L, Ugurbil K, Johnson CP, et al. Locally low-rank denoising in transform domains. bioRxiv. 2023. doi: 10.1101/2023.11.21.568193.

27. Pfeifer CG, Kinsella SD, Milby AH, Fisher MB, Belkin NS, Mauck RL, et al. Development of a Large Animal Model of Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee: A Pilot Study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2015;3(2):2325967115570019. doi: 10.1177/2325967115570019.

28. Tóth F, Nissi MJ, Armstrong AR, Buko EO, Johnson CP. Epiphyseal cartilage vascular architecture at the distal humeral osteochondritis dissecans predilection site in juvenile pigs. J Orthop Res. 2024; 42(3):737-744.”

R1.8: Reviewer’s comment: Figures 2E,F; 3F; 4F; 5F – please change contrast in these images to better depict cartilage and lesions. Figure 3E looks so much better than 2E.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment, we have attempted to adjust the brightness and contrast in Figures 2E,F; 3F; 4F; 5F to better match the native contrast of Figure 3E

Changes made in manuscript: Figures 2E,F; 3F; 4F; 5F: Adjustments were made as requested to the contrast and brightness levels in Figures 2E,F; 3F; 4F; 5F

R1.9: Reviewer’s comment: Figure 6 - Please add arrows pointing to OCD lesions.

Authors’ response: OC-manifesta lesions are marked with arrows in the revised figure.

Changes made in manuscript: Figure 6: Arrows marking OC-manifesta lesions have been added to figure 6.

Reviewer 2

“This is an interesting and well performed study, which demonstrates that a total vascular interruption to the trochlea ridge of femur will cause larger cartilage lesions than a partial vascular insult. The surgical procedure with a control of the extent of induced ischemia to the growth cartilage of the femoral trochlear is ingenious.

The hypothesis is clear, and it is unlikely to expect a different outcome. The physiological laws that an insult to a larger vascular bed should cause a larger infarct seems obvious. But as stated in the discussion (line 308) it is “anecdotal evidence”.

The data shows that the lesions after a partial devascularization is indeed smaller, but also decrease over time which is the most important finding. It would have been even more interesting to follow the piglets longer, with MR images, to see if the lesions eventually would disappear completely in this group and if the larger lesion would have developed into OCD.”

R2.1: Reviewer’s comment: The abstract is clearly written and describes the study. I think a more precise description of the breed of “novel piglet model” could be added already in the abstract.

Suggestion: Line 29-30…Ten 4-week-old Yorkshire piglets underwent

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment, the text has been changed to reflect your suggestion.

Changes made in manuscript: L27-28: “Ten 4-week-old Yorkshire piglets…”

R2.2: Reviewer’s comment: L149 - sectioned into serial 2,0 mm thick slabs that spanned the total width of the trochlea… How many slabs did this result in from each trochlea?

Authors’ response: The number of slabs slightly varied by the size of the trochlea, but typically ranged from 3-4 2mm slabs, and always included the trochlear ridge and all grossly apparent lesions.

Changes made in manuscript: L153-156: “Decalcified specimens were serially sectioned in the sagittal plane into three to four 2.0 mm thick slabs that spanned the total width of the trochlea including the trochlear ridge and any grossly apparent lesion.”

R2.3: Reviewer’s comment: L150 - Out of these, two 5-µm-thick slabs were processed for histology from each surface of the 2-mm slab. How many histologic sections were evaluated from each trochlea?

The OCM on histology were graded in size (result-section). Small, moderate? Large? Measured?

Authors’ response: The number of slabs per harvested stifle ranged from three to four and from each of these slabs two 5-um thick sections were processed and assessed histologically; therefore, 6-8 sections were examined from each trochlea. OCM lesion sizes were assessed qualitatively as small, medium, or large; they were not measured on histology. Please see comment R2.5 for details. (Quantitative assessment of lesion size was based on the MRI findings, because it allowed precise evaluation of each individual slice, thus identification of the slice with the largest apparent lesion area in each pig.)

Changes made in manuscript: L157-158: “At least two 5-μm-thick sections were collected from the surface of each slab (n=6 to 8 sections/ trochlea) and stained with hematoxylin & eosin (H&E).”

R2.4: Reviewer’s comment: L189 - The weight and exact age of the pigs at the time of surgery is stated in line 189. How much did the different groups weigh at euthanasia and were all 12,0 weeks?

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment, the requested information has been included in the revised manuscript.

Changes made in manuscript: L204-209: “At the time of the 12-week MRI evaluation, the mean ± SD age of piglets receiving complete vs. partial devascularization was nearly identical at 115.8 ± 1.0 vs. 114.2 ± 3.8 days (p = 0.442). At the same timepoint, piglets appeared heavier in the complete devascularization group with a mean ± SD bodyweight of 57.3 ± 14.0 kg vs. 46.5 ± 9.7 kg for piglets undergoing partial devascularization; however, this difference was not statistically significant either (p = 0.1858).” and L184-185: “The age and bodyweight of piglets at the time of the 12-week MRI study was compared between treatment groups using a two-tailed, unpaired t-test.”

R2.5: Reviewer’s comment: L251-255 - Small, medium and large sized OCM? Perhaps add a description of the different sizes more clearly in the legends to figure 6, then the reader will understand the different sizes more clearly. The following description could be used in fig. 6: Line 251: large OCM = “most of the lateral trochlear ridge. Line 253: Small= nearly completely surrounded by bone. Line 255: Medium OCM = a substantial portion of the cartilage.

Authors’ response: The legend for Figure 6 has been amended by the suggested descriptors of the lesions.

Changes made in manuscript: Figure 6: “Fig 6. Representative histological images of all 10 piglets obtained 12 weeks after they underwent complete or partial devascularization of the lateral trochlear ridge of the femur. Complete devascularization in Piglets #1, 2, 3, and 4 led to the formation of extensive OC-manifesta lesions involving most of the lateral trochlear ridge. After partial devascularization, Piglet #6 developed a medium-sized OC-manifesta lesion involving a substantial portion of the epiphyseal cartilage; Piglets #5, 7, 8, and 9 had healing OC-manifesta lesions nearly completely surrounded by bone; and Piglet #10 had no apparent lesion on histology.”

R2.6: Reviewer’s comment: Results general - What did the growth cartilage, overlying the OCM look like? Was there resolved vascularization, total disappearance of vessels with chondrification or still a large OCL, with necrotic cartilage? Did the control side (not operated) still show vascularization at 12-weeks or a complete lack of vessels or chondrificaiton? Was the overlying non-vascularized articular cartilage affected at all in the operated side?

Authors’ response: OC-manifesta lesions typically included necrotic cartilage extending into the epiphyseal cartilage overlying the area of delayed endochondral ossification. Within the epiphyseal cartilage superficial to the OC-manifesta lesions (i.e., between the articular surface and the necrotic epiphyseal cartilage), there were few persistent small vascular canals along with small numbers of vascular canals that were either already chondrified or beginning to chondrify. On the control side, persistent vascular canals along with scattered chondrified vascular canals were both present in the epiphyseal growth cartilage at the time of sampling (16 weeks of age; 12 weeks post-operative). There were no significant changes to the overlying articular cartilage at the operated sites.

Changes made in manuscript: L313-317: “In all OC-manifesta lesions, retention of necrotic cartilage matrix within the epiphyseal cartilage overlying the area of delayed endochondral ossification was apparent. Adjacent to these affected areas, normal epiphyseal cartilage had few remaining intact vascular canals along with small numbers of chondrified and/or chondrifying vascular canals.”

Minor formatting changes were also made in the manuscript to meet the requirements for publication in PLOS ONE.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reveiwers.docx

pone.0308641.s002.docx (23.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Andre van Wijnen

29 Jul 2024

Relationship Between the Extent of Vascular Injury and the Evolution of Surgically Induced Osteochondrosis Lesions in a Piglet Model.

PONE-D-24-17211R1

Dear Dr. Toth,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andre van Wijnen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have responded to my questions and added explanations in the text as well as in the figure legends.

I am not an expert in statistics, but to my knowledge it appears sound

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Andre van Wijnen

1 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-17211R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tóth,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andre van Wijnen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Dataset

    (XLSX)

    pone.0308641.s001.xlsx (13.9KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reveiwers.docx

    pone.0308641.s002.docx (23.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES