Abstract
Objective
We used biomimetic scaffolds, chondral scaffolds, and microfractures to repair experimentally created osteochondral defects in rat knees and then compared the results of each method.
Materials and Methods
We used a total of 56 female Wistar albino rats. The rats were grouped into 4 groups, with 14 rats each: biomimetic scaffold, chondral scaffold, microfracture, and control groups. Cylindrical full-thickness osteochondral defects 2.5 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth were drilled into the right knees with the rats under general anesthesia. The knees of all rats were operated again after 4 weeks. Biomimetic and chondral scaffolds were classified into two groups. Microfractures 0.5 mm in diameter and 0.8 mm in depth were created in the rats of the microfracture group. The control group received no treatment. All the rats were observed for 6 weeks and then sacrificed, with samples subjected to macroscopic and histopathological examinations.
Results
The macroscopic and histopathological results in the biomimetic scaffold group differed significantly from those of the other treatment groups (p<0.05). When we compared the 3 treatment groups, the results of the chondral scaffold group were better than those of the microfracture group. The results of the microfracture group were somewhat better than those of the control group, but the result was not statistically significant (p>0.05).
Conclusions
Nanocomposite multilayer biomimetic scaffolds were better than chondral scaffolds and microfractures when used to treat osteochondral defects.
Keywords: Microfracture technique, osteochondral defect, pathology, rat, scaffold
Introduction
Treatment of cartilage injury is one of the most popular topics in the field of orthopedics and traumatology [1–3]. As the cartilage lacks veins, its regeneration ability is low [3–5]. However, if the defect includes the subchondral bone, which is vascular, healing may be possible. Small defects can heal using fibrocartilaginous tissue from the subchondral area, while larger defects are more difficult to repair [6]. Some healing techniques seek to stimulate regeneration. However, tissue renewal is often incomplete and short lived.
If a strained or damaged synovial joint has to function normally, it is necessary to restore the hyaline cartilage [3]. Several treatment options are available. These include bone marrow stimulation techniques (abrasion, drilling, and microfracture), cell-based treatments (autologous chondrocyte transplantation or the use of bone marrow stem cells), defect-filling techniques (osteochondral autografts or allografts), the use of tissue engineering products (scaffolds and matrices), and the use of pharmacological agents [7–9].
The microfracture technique effectively treats full-thickness articular cartilage defects [7]. The cartilage differs from normal articular joint cartilage in terms of composition and mechanical characteristics. The advantages of the microfracture technique include the simplicity of the procedure, its low cost, and possibility of application in a single session with low morbidity [7].
Matrix-supported treatments retain chondrocytes within the defect. Nanocomposite multilayer biomimetic scaffolds have been used to repair type 1 collagen, hydroxyapatite, cartilage, and osteochondral defects [9]. Such scaffolds are three-dimensional and imitate osteochondral tissue. The cartilage layer has a smooth surface (formed by pure type 1 collagen) to ensure good articulation. The intermediate layer is formed of 60% type 1 collagen and 40% magnesium-hydroxyapatite (both w/w). The bottom layer consists of 30% type 1 collagen and 70% magnesium-hydroxyapatite; this stimulates subchondral bone production [10–12].
Another treatment option is to use a chondral scaffold (a bioabsorbable joint implant). The scaffold can be employed to facilitate cartilage repair after microfracture of a full-layer osteochondral defect. Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal and progenitor cells enhance chemotaxis toward the defect. The scaffold (infused with autologous serum and polyglycolic acid (PGA) is implanted into the full-layer defect.
Treatment of cartilage defects is a difficult and long process. In the long period, the aim is to obtain a durable, permanent, and cartilaginous tissue that resembles the original joint cartilage. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of biomimetic scaffolds, chondral scaffolds, and microfractures by creating full-thickness osteochondral defects in the knees of rats.
Materials and Methods
This study was approved by the Institutional Animal Experiments Local Ethics Committee.
In this study a total of 56 mature female Wistar Albino rats weighing 220–270 g, that were 5–7 months of age were grouped into 4 categories, each consisting of 14 rats. Some animals were lost during the experimental period. The final groups analyzed were as follows: biomimetic osteochondral scaffold group (n=12), chondral scaffold group (n=10), microfracture group (n=12), and control group (n=14). A power analysis was conducted before performing the study experiment. The presence of at least 9 rats in each group was found to be sufficient.
Cylindrical full-thickness osteochondral defects 2 mm deep and 2.5 mm wide were drilled into the femoral intercondylar areas of the right knees via a medial incision and application of medial parapatellar arthrotomy (Figure 1A). The anatomical layers were restored, and the rats were observed for 4 weeks.
Figure 1. a–d.
a) Knee with an osteochondral defect. b) Knee with a biomimetic scaffold. c) Knee with a chondral scaffold. d) Knee subjected to microfracture.
At that end of 4 weeks, osteochondral biomimetic scaffolds were placed in the defects of one group (Figure 1B), another group was treated via microfractures (0.5 mm wide and 0.8 mm deep) and placement of a chondral scaffold (Figure 1C), and microfractures alone was used to treat a third group (Figure 1D). The controls were not treated. The rats were observed for a further 6 weeks.
At 10 weeks after the first operation, all rats were sacrificed by inhalation of a lethal dose of ether. The lower right extremities were subjected to arthrotomy. Soft tissue was removed from the distal femur and the muscles cut. The anterior cruciate ligament and the meniscus were cleaned. Half of each distal femur was removed via the femoral diaphysis using medial transverse osteotomy. This study was carried out in accordance with the ethical standards provided in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Tissues were stored in 10% formalin for 5 days before routine tissue processing for histopathological analysis. Samples were decalcified at room temperature in DeCastro solution (30 mL 70% nitric acid, 50 g chloral hydrate, and 300 mL absolute ethanol) and returned to 10% formalin (pH 7.0) in phosphate-buffered saline.
Specimens were sliced with 2 mm thickness. An automated tissue tracking device was used for routine processing 13 h postfixation with 2 containers of formaldehyde, 4 containers of alcohol, 2 containers of xylene, and 2 vessels of paraffin. After performing proper fixation and decalcification procedure, the slices were embedded in paraffin, and serial sections of 4-μm in thickness were prepared (1 in 3 slices was retained) in a rotary microtome (MB 35 Premier; Shandon Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA) and coated with gelatin. The sections were stained using hematoxylin-eosin and safranin-O and examined under a light microscope, and the images were digitized.
Slices were evaluated according to 3 different systems: the macroscopic modified Fortier classifications (Table 1) [13], the Mankin scores (Table 2) [14], and the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) scores (Table 3) [15].
Table 1.
Macroscopic modified Fortier classifications [13]
| Scoring system used for gross appearance (Fortier classifications) | Score |
|---|---|
| Surface texture of repair tissue | |
| Normal: Smooth hyalin | 0 |
| >75% normal | 1 |
| 50–75% normal | 2 |
| <50% normal | 3 |
| Percent area of defect filled | |
| 100% | 0 |
| >75% | 1 |
| 50–75% | 2 |
| <50% | 3 |
| Graft recipient tissue integration | |
| 100% of perimeter | 0 |
| >75% of perimeter | 1 |
| 50–75% of perimeter | 2 |
| <50% of perimeter | 3 |
| Bone-cartilage interface appearance | |
| Regular | 0 |
| Slightly over/under lined | 1 |
| Mayor irregularity | 2 |
| Irregular or cystic | 3 |
| Bone defect filling | |
| 100% | 0 |
| >75% | 1 |
| 50–75% | 2 |
| <50% | 3 |
Table 2.
Mankin scores [14]
| I. Structure | |
| a. Normal | 0 |
| b. Surface irregularities | 1 |
| c. Pannus and surface irregularities | 2 |
| d. Clefts to transitional zone | 3 |
| e. Clefts to radial zone | 4 |
| f. Clefts to calcified zone | 5 |
| g. Complete disorganization | 6 |
| II. Cells | |
| a. Normal | 0 |
| b. Diffuse hypercellularity | 1 |
| c. Cloning | 2 |
| d. Hypocellularity | 3 |
| III. Safranin-O staining | |
| a. Normal | 0 |
| b. Slight reduction | 1 |
| c. Moderate reduction | 2 |
| d. Severe reduction | 3 |
| e. No dye noted | 4 |
| IV. Tidemark integrity | |
| a. Intact | 0 |
| b. Crossed by blood vessels | 1 |
Table 3.
International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) scores [15]
| Cartilage surface property | |
| Smooth, regular | 3 |
| Irregular | 0 |
| Cartilage Matrix structure | |
| Hyalin | 3 |
| Mix (hyalin/fibrocartilage) | 2 |
| Fibrocartilage | 1 |
| Fibrous tissue | 0 |
| Cell distribution | |
| Columnar | 3 |
| Mix ( columnar/ Clustered) | 2 |
| Clustered | 1 |
| Dispersed disorganized cells | 0 |
| Cell population viability | |
| Dominant | 3 |
| Partially | 1 |
| <10% | 0 |
| Subchondral bone property | |
| Normal | 3 |
| Increased shape change | 2 |
| Bone necrosis/granulation tissue | 1 |
| Reserved / broken / callus | 0 |
| Cartilage mineralization | |
| Normal | 3 |
| Abnormal/inappropriate localization | 0 |
In the modified Fortier scoring where the tissues were evaluated macroscopically, the parameters of the surface texture of repair tissue, percent area of defect filled, graft recipient tissue integration, bone-cartilage interface appearance, and bone defect filling parameters were examined (Table 1) [13].
The Mankin scoring evaluated cartilage structure, cell structure, the extent of the matrix stained with safranin-O, and the smoothness of articulation (Table 2) [14].
Cartilage characteristics, including the matrix structure, cell distribution, cell populations, and subchondral bone characteristics, were evaluated using the ICRS system, which grades cartilage mineralization (Table 3) [15]. Histopathological evaluation was done blinded by a pathologist.
Statistical Analysis
All macroscopic and histological data were recorded and compared using NCSS 2007 software (NCSS; Kaysville, UT, USA). Descriptive data are presented as averages with standard deviations and medians. As the data were not normally distributed, the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used for intergroup comparisons. A posthoc test (Dunn’s test) was used to analyze the significance of differences between groups. A p value <0.05 was considered to reflect statistical significance.
Results
We used 48 rats (12 in the biomimetic scaffold group, 10 in the chondral scaffold group, 12 in the microfracture group, and 14 controls) and histopathologically studied the healing of knee defects (Figures 3A–F). The average macroscopic and histological scores of each group were calculated (Tables 4–6).
Figure 3. a–f.
a) Fibrohyaline cartilage (×40). b) New islands of hyaline cartilage (biomimetic scaffold, ×100). c) Minimal filling defect (scaffold, ×40). d) Fibrous cartilage (microfracture, ×100). e) Filling defect (control, ×40). f ) Fibrotic layer on the bony surface (control, hematoxylin and eosin ×100).
Table 4.
Mean, median, and minimum and maximum values of the macroscopic scores (Modified Fortier scores)
| Biomimetic scaffold group | Chondral scaffold group | Microfracture group | Control group | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surface texture of repair tissue | Mean | 0.67±0.49 | 2.5±0.53 | 2.5±0.52 | 2.64±0.63 | 1 <0.001 |
| Median | 1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 3 | ||
| Min-max | 0–1 | 2–3 | 2–3 | 1–3 | ||
| Percent area of defect filled | Mean | 0.25±0.45 | 1.5±0.85 | 1.7±0.67 | 1.57±0.85 | 1<0.001 |
| Median | 0 | 1.5 | 2 | 1.5 | ||
| Min–max | 0–1 | 0–3 | 1–3 | 0–3 | ||
| Graft recipient tissue integration | Mean | 0.33±0.49 | 0.2±0.79 | - | - | 2<0.017 |
| Median | 0 | 0 | - | - | ||
| Min–max | 0–1 | 0–2 | - | - | ||
| Bone–cartilage interface appearance | Mean | 0.92±0.67 | 1.9±0.74 | 1.7±0.67 | 2.36±0.93 | 1<0.001 |
| Median | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | ||
| Min-max | 0–2 | 0–3 | 0–2 | 0–3 | ||
| Bone defect filling | Mean | 0.42±0.67 | 1.4±0.97 | 1.4±0.70 | 1.71±0.83 | 1<0.004 |
| Median | 0 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | ||
| Min-max | 0–2 | 0–3 | 0–2 | 0–3 | 2<0.001 | |
| Total macroscopic score | Mean | 2.58±1.62 | 8.5±2.41 | - | - | |
| Median | 2 | 9 | - | - |
1: Kruskal–Wallis test; 2: Mann–Whitney-U test
Table 5.
Mean, median, and minimum and maximum values of the Mankin scores
| Biomimetic scaffold group | Chondral scaffold group | Microfracture group | Control group | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cartilage structure | Mean | 0.83±1.11 | 4.1 ± 1.1 | 4.1±1.10 | 4.71±1.54 | |
| Median | 0.5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | <0.001 | |
| Min–max | 0–3 | 2–6 | 3–6 | 1–6 | ||
| Cell abnormality | Mean | 0.42±0.67 | 2±0.67 | 2.2±1.03 | 2.28±0.83 | |
| Median | 0 | 2 | 2.5 | 2 | <0.001 | |
| Min–max | 0–2 | 1–3 | 0–3 | 0–3 | ||
| Safranin-O staining | Mean | 1.25±0.45 | 2.4±1.07 | 2.8±0.63 | 3.29±0.83 | <0.001 |
| Median | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3.5 | ||
| Min–max | 1–2 | 1–4 | 2–4 | 2–4 | ||
| Tidemark integrity | Mean | 0.58±0.51 | 1±0 | 1±0 | 1±0 | <0.001 |
| Median | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Min–max | 0–1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Total Mankin score | Mean | 3.08±2.07 | 9.5±2.41 | 10.1±2.23 | 11.28±2.78 | <0.001 |
| Median | 2.5 | 9 | 10 | 12 |
Kruskal–Wallis test
Table 6.
Mean, median, and (minimum and maximum) values of the ICRS scores
| Biomimetic scaffold group | Chondral scaffold group | Microfracture group | Control group | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cartilage surface property | Mean | 2±1.47 | 0.3±0.95 | 0.3±0.95 | 0.21±0.80 | |
| Median | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | <0.001 | |
| Min-max | 0–3 | 0–3 | 0–3 | 0–3 | ||
| Cartilage matrix structure | Mean | 1.75±0.75 | 0.8±0.63 | 0.7±0.67 | 0.14±0.36 | |
| Median | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | <0.001 | |
| Min-max | 03 | 0–2 | 0–2 | 0–1 | ||
| Cell distribution | Mean | 1.75±0.75 | 1±0.67 | 0.6±0.84 | 0.36±0.5 | |
| Median | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | <0.001 | |
| Min-max | 0–3 | 0–2 | 0–2 | 0–1 | ||
| Cell population viability | Mean | 3±0 | 1.3±0.95 | 1.3±0.95 | 0.86±0.36 | |
| Median | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | <0.001 | |
| Min-max | 3 | 0–3 | 0–3 | 0–1 | ||
| Subchondral bone property | Mean | 2.58±0.67 | 1.6±0.84 | 1.4±1.07 | 1±0.96 | |
| Median | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | <0.001 | |
| Min-max | 1–3 | 0–3 | 0–3 | 0–3 | ||
| Cartilage mineralization | Mean | 2.75±0.87 | 0.3±0.95 | 0.6±1.26 | 0.43±1.09 | |
| Median | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | <0.001 | |
| Min-max | 0–3 | 0–3 | 0–3 | 0–3 | ||
| Total ICRS score | Mean | 1–3.83±3.07 | 5.3±2.62 | 4.9±2.88 | 3±2.77 | <0.001 |
| Median | 15 | 5.5 | 5 | 2 |
ICRS: International Cartilage Repair Society
As the microfracture and control groups did not receive scaffolds, macroscopic data are not available for these 2 groups. The average macroscopic score of the biomimetic scaffold group was lower than that of the chondral scaffold group. According to the results, the biomimetic scaffold group improved better than the chondral scaffold group, and the result was statistically significant (Figure 2). Moreover, the average extents of repair, proportion of overall defect filling, bone-cartilage interface appearance, and extent of bone-defect filling were lower in the biomimetic scaffold group than those in other 3 groups. However, the average extent of graft/recipient tissue integration was lower in the chondral scaffold group.
Figure 2. a–d.
Macroscopic view of the a) biomimetic scaffold; b) chondral scaffold; c) micro fracture group (arrows show 4 microcircular holes in the microfracture); and d) control group.
Discussion
According to the results of this study, the biomimetic scaffold was significantly more effective than the chondral scaffold or microfracture.
The results of the chondral scaffold, microfracture, and control groups did not differ significantly. The chondral scaffold was somewhat more effective than microfractures, but statistical significance was not attained.
In this study, 3 different evaluations were made. The biomimetic scaffold group was found to be better in terms of 5 parameters (the surface texture of repair tissue, percent area of defect filled, graft recipient tissue integration, bone-cartilage interface appearance, and bone-defect filling), which were evaluated according to the modified Fortier scores.
The parameters such as cartilage structure, cell abnormality, safranin-O staining, and tidemark integrity were also found to be better in the biomimetic scaffold group than those in other groups.
Other parameters such as cartilage surface property, cartilage matrix structure, cell distribution, cell population viability, subchondral bone property, and cartilage mineralization used to evaluate the ICRS score were also found to be better in the biomimetic scaffold group than those in other groups.
Scaffolds ensure that cells or growth factors remain within a defect until recovery [16]. Various collagens, hyaluronan, fibrin, carbon fibers, porous polylactic acids, and polytetrafluoroethylene polyesters have been used as scaffolds [16]. An ideal scaffold must provide a temporary cap for the defect until the cells completely repair and must then be absorbed within the few months over which the chondrocytes self-renew [17].
Nanocomposite multilayer biomimetic scaffolds are highly porous, three-dimensional, hydrophilic, and imitate the osteochondral structure [8, 10, 18, 19].
Kon et al. [18] used biomimetic scaffolds to repair osteochondral lesions created in 24 femoral condyles of 12 sheep. The 3 groups were biomimetic scaffold group, biomimetic scaffold-plus-platelet-rich plasma group, and control group. Microradiographic, macroscopic, and histological data were collected. Only the biomimetic scaffold group exhibited significant bone regeneration and reconstruction of the cartilage surface.
Kon et al. [20]. treated 60 grade 3–4 osteochondral defects in the knees of 60 patients by osteochondral autologous transplantation, bone grafting (auto chondrocyte implantation), placement of biomimetic scaffolds, bone-cartilage grafting, and placement of hyaluronic acid scaffolds that had absorbed bone marrow cells. In another study, 30 patients with osteochondral lesions 1.5–6 cm2 in area were treated using biomimetic scaffolds [19].
In a study on 2 horses, osteochondral lesions were created in medial condyles and chondral lesions in lateral condyles [9]. Both types of lesions were treated using biomimetic scaffolds. The animals were followed up for 6 months. Arthroscopy was performed under anesthesia 2 months after the operation to observe the scaffold structure and the extent of tissue recovery. The osteochondral and chondral lesions recovered well, the grafts were fibrocartilaginous in texture, and no inflammation was evident around any lesion.
We found that the efficacy of the biomimetic scaffolds was consistent with that reported in the literature. The biomimetic scaffold group scored significantly higher in terms of both macroscopic and histopathological parameters than the other groups.
The chondral scaffold (Swiss Biomed Orthopedics AG, Zürich, Switzerland), also termed as a bioabsorbable joint implant, has a molecular weight of 50,000 Da; this is a nonwoven absorbing material made of pure PGA [21]. Autologous serum is added and the scaffold is placed in a full-thickness osteochondral defect. The homogenous fiber structure endures until new cartilage is produced in a parallel arrangement at a controlled rate [12, 21]. This scaffold is bioabsorbable, soft, fairly flexible, and resistant to tearing [21].
Loken et al. [22]. created 4-mm-wide and 1.5-mm-deep osteochondral defects in the medial femoral condyles of both knees of 11 rabbits. A hyaluronan-based scaffold (HYAFF-11, Fidia Advanced Biopolymers Laboratories, Abano Terme, Italy) and mesenchymal stem cells were placed in one knee and the scaffold in the other. After 24 weeks, all defects had filled well; no significant differences were evident between the 2 groups.
Erggelet et al. used microfracture, alone or in combination with a PGA-based structured noncellular scaffold, to treat osteochondral defects created in sheep knees [12]. Three months later, the noncellular implant (containing autologous serum) had encouraged migration and differentiation of mesenchymal progenitor cells to/within the cartilage, associated with regeneration. Thus, the implant reliably enhanced cartilage recovery when placed after microfracture.
Gille et al. [23]. used autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) to treat osteochondral lesions in the knees of 57 patients. A collagen-based structural scaffold (Chondro-Gide, Geistlich Pharma, Wolhusen, Switzerland) was placed after microfracture. Most patients followed-up for approximately 2 years reported reduced postoperative pain (mean visual analogue scale pain score preoperatively, 7.0; 1 year postoperatively, 2.7; and 2 years postoperatively, 2.0) and an increase in the average Lysholm score (mean score preoperatively, 50.1; 1 year postoperatively, 79.9; and 2 years postoperatively, 85.2). AMIC was efficient and reliable when used to treat symptomatic knee cartilage defects.
The literature indicates that scaffolds increased clinical scores, afford better cartilage repair, attract mesenchymal stem cells to the defect, provide mechanical protection, exhibit a general supportive function, render the articular surface smoother, encourage new bone formation in the subchondral area, and ensure better defect filling. We found that both of our tested scaffolds exhibited such properties.
Microfractures effectively heal full-layer lesions of knee cartilage [24–26]. Microfractures are a form of stem cell stimulation seeking to recreate a normal vasculature. The use of bone marrow stimulation techniques to treat chondral lesions reduces the strength of healed tissue. The tissue that forms after such procedures differs from normal cartilage in terms of structure, composition, and mechanical strength [24].
Heir et al. [27] created experimental 4-mm-wide osteochondral defects in the femoral knee condyles of 22-week-old New Zealand rabbits. Microfracture and mosaicplasty were compared in terms of defect filling, new bone generation, and bone mineralization. Mosaicplasty was optimal, being associated with high-level defect filling and new bone generation. However, subchondral bone mineralization was better after microfracture.
Güneş et al. [28] created 4-mm-wide full-thickness cartilage defects in the right medial femoral condyles of 40 mature rabbits. The control group was untreated. Two test groups underwent periosteal flap transplantation or microfractures; a third group was treated with both techniques. Twelve weeks later, the results were evaluated using the ICRS scale. The combined treatment (microfracture-plus-flap placement) afforded better repair than the other treatments.
Kuo et al. [29] histopathologically compared the results of 4 different treatments (microfractures, addition of bone morphogenetic protein 7 (BMP-7), microfractures combined with BMP-7 absorbed in a collagen sponge, and microfractures with the collagen sponge only) of full-thickness cartilage defects. Compared to controls, BMP-7 enhanced tissue repair (the new tissue was of good quality). In the microfracture-plus-BMP-7 group, the extent of repair and the smoothness of the bony surface were enhanced; this combined treatment was thus favored. The cited authors considered that as BMP-7 induces cartilage differentiation, the addition of the protein after microfractures yielded a cartilage similar to hyaline in terms of both quality and quantity.
Xing et al. [30] treated full-thickness experimental cartilage defects in rat knees using both the microfracture technique and an adhesive osteochondral implant. Macroscopic, biochemical, histological, and genetic analyses performed 12 weeks later showed that the implant group exhibited good tissue repair and defect filling. Hyaline-like regenerative tissue and a high level of type collagen II (stained with safranin-O) were evident. In the microfracture group, the cartilage tissue was fibrotic, the extent of safranin-O staining was low, and the type II collagen structure was poor. Thus, the implant optimized repair and hyaline cartilage generation.
The literature indicates that scaffold techniques are significantly better than the microfracture technique [18, 22]. We also found that biomimetic (particularly) and chondral scaffolds were better than the microfracture technique.
Biomimetic scaffolds are now standard treatment options; such scaffolds effectively heal cartilage with osteochondral defects. Many different scaffold materials have been clinically used to treat such defects. However, no prior study simultaneously compared biomimetic and chondral scaffolds with the microfracture technique.
In conclusion, we have shown that both biomimetic and chondral scaffolds can be used to treat osteochondral defects. The formerly accepted microfracture technique is inadequate; biomimetic scaffolds fill defects better and yield a smoother cartilage surface. In the control group, defect filling was unsatisfactory and the cartilage surface was rough.
Biomimetic scaffolds can be reliably used to treat osteochondral defects; the scaffolds are three dimensional in structure and imitate articular cartilage and bone.
In this study, tissues were evaluated by a single pathologist. This is an animal study, which is unable to recapitulate exactly clinical osteochondral healing. Since there is no standard time in the literature, the time period of 6 weeks is questionable. The results of this study are not confirmed by biomechanical and radiological methods.
Main Points.
The biomimetic scaffold group improved better than the chondral scaffold group.
The average extents of repair, proportion of overall defect filling, bone–cartilage interface appearance, and extent of bone-defect filling were lower in the biomimetic scaffold group than those in other 3 groups.
The average extent of graft/recipient tissue integration was lower in the chondral scaffold group.
Footnotes
Ethics Committee Approval: Ethics committee approval was received for this study from the ethics committee of Abant Izzet Baykal University. (No 0.05.05-050.01.04.-247).
Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.
Author Contributions: Concept - K.S., İ.Y., Z.O.K., A.M.; Design K.S., İ.Y., Z.O.K., A.M., M.O.; Supervision - İ.Y., A.M.; Resources - K.S., İ.Y., Z.O.K., A.M., M.O.; Materials - K.S., İ.Y., Z.O.K., A.M.; Data Collection and/or Processing - K.S., Z.O.K., A.M., S.A.; Analysis and/or Interpretation - K.S., Z.O.K.; Literature Search - K.S., Z.O.K., A.M., S.A.; Writing Manuscript - K.S., A.M., S.A.; Critical Review - İ.Y., M.O.
Conflict of Interest: Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Financial Disclosure: The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.
References
- 1.Bedi A, Feeley BT, Williams RJ. Management of articular cartilage defects of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:994–1009. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00895. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Wallace S, Gellin R. Clinical evaluation of freeze-dried cancellous block allografts for ridge augmentation and implant placement in the maxilla. Implant Dent. 2010;19:272–9. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181e5d2a1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Park YB, Ha CW, Kim JA, et al. Single-stage cell-based cartilage repair in a rabbit model: cell tracking and in vivo chondrogenesis of human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells and hyaluronic acid hydrogel composite. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017;25:570–80. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2016.10.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Bekkers JE, Inklaar M, Saris DB. Treatment selection in articular cartilage lesions of the knee: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37( Suppl 1):148S–55S. doi: 10.1177/0363546509351143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Makris EA, Gomoll AH, Malizos KN, et al. Repair and tissue engineering techniques for articular cartilage. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2015;11:21–34. doi: 10.1038/nrrheum.2014.157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Skwara A, Ponelis R, Tibesku CO, et al. Gait patterns after intraarticular treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee--hyaluronan versus triamcinolone: a prospective, randomized, doubleblind, monocentric study. Eur J Med Res. 2009;14:157–64. doi: 10.1186/2047-783X-14-4-157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Solheim E, Hegna J, Inderhaug E, et al. Results at 10–14 years after microfracture treatment of articular cartilage defects in the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24:1587–93. doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3443-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Orak MM, Ak D, Midi A, et al. Comparison of the effects of chronic intra-articular administration of tenoxicam, diclofenac, and methylprednisolone in healthy rats. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2015;49:438–46. doi: 10.3944/AOTT.2015.14.0312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kon E, Mutini A, Arcangeli E, et al. Novel nanostructured scaffold for osteochondral regeneration: pilot study in horses. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2010;4:300–8. doi: 10.1002/term.243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Tampieri A, Sandri M, Landi E, et al. Design of graded biomimetic osteochondral composite scaffolds. Biomaterials. 2008;29:3539–46. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Panseri S, Russo A, Cunha C, et al. Osteochondral tissue engineering approaches for articular cartilage and subchondral bone regeneration. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20:1182–91. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1655-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Erggelet C, Neumann K, Endres M, et al. Regeneration of ovine articular cartilage defects by cell-free polymer-based implants. Biomaterials. 2007;28:5570–80. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kon E, Delcogliano M, Filardo G, et al. Orderly osteochondral regeneration in a sheep model using a novel nano composite multilayered biomaterial. J Orthop Res. 2010;28:116–24. doi: 10.1002/jor.20958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Murat N, Karadam B, Özkal S, et al. Quantification of papain induced rat osteoarthritis in relation to time with the Mankin score. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2007;41:233–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Mainil-Varlet P, Aigner T, Brittberg M, et al. Histological assessment of cartilage repair: a report by the Histology Endpoint Committee of the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(Suppl 2):45–57. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200300002-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kim SJ. In: Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation. Mastering Orthopedic Techniques: Knee Reconstruction. 1st edition. Malhotra R, Apsingi S, Eachempati KK, Gautam D, editors. New Delhi: Jaypee; 2016. pp. 323–30. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Tatara AM, Mikos AG. Tissue engineering in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:1132–9. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kon E, Delcogliano M, Filardo G, et al. Novel nano-composite multi-layered biomaterial for the treatment of multifocal degenerative cartilage lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17:1312–5. doi: 10.1007/s00167-009-0819-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Kon E, Delcogliano M, Filardo G, et al. Novel nano-composite multilayered biomaterial for osteochondral regeneration: a pilot clinical trial. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:1180–90. doi: 10.1177/0363546510392711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kon E, Vannini F, Buda R, et al. How to treat osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: surgical techniques and new trends: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:1–8. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Camarero-Espinosa S, Rothen-Rutishauser B, Foster E, et al. Articular cartilage: from formation to tissue engineering. Biomater Sci. 2016;4:734–67. doi: 10.1039/C6BM00068A. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Gobbi A, Whyte GP. One-stage cartilage repair using a hyaluronic acid-based scaffold with activated bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells compared with microfracture: five-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44:2846–54. doi: 10.1177/0363546516656179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Gille J, Behrens P, Volpi P, et al. Outcome of Autologous Matrix Induced Chondrogenesis (AMIC) in cartilage knee surgery: data of the AMIC Registry. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133:87–93. doi: 10.1007/s00402-012-1621-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Steadman JR, Miller BS, Karas SG, et al. The microfracture technique in the treatment of full-thickness chondral lesions of the knee in National Football League players. J Knee Surg. 2003;16:83–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Mithoefer K, Venugopal V, Manaqibwala M. Incidence, degree, and clinical effect of subchondral bone overgrowth after microfracture in the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44:2057–63. doi: 10.1177/0363546516645514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Alparslan B, Ozkan I, Acar U, et al. The microfracture technique in the treatment of full-thickness chondral lesions of the knee. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2007;41(Suppl 2):62–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Heir S, Årøen A, Løken S. Cartilage repair in the rabbit knee: mosaic plasty resulted in higher degree of tissue filling but affected subchondral bone more than microfracture technique: a blinded, randomized, controlled, long-term follow-up trial in 88 knees. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20:197–209. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1596-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Güneş T, Sen C, Erdem M. Combination of microfracture and periosteal transplantation techniques for the treatment of full-thickness cartilage defects. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2006;40:315–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Scarfì S. Use of bone morphogenetic proteins in mesenchymal stem cell stimulation of cartilage and bone repair. World J Stem Cells. 2016;8:1–12. doi: 10.4252/wjsc.v8.i1.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Xing L, Jiang Y, Gui J, et al. Microfracture combined with osteochondral paste implantation was more effective than microfracture alone for full-thickness cartilage repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:1770–6. doi: 10.1007/s00167-012-2031-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]