The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2006;88:2673-2686.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.01008
© 2006 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exams for this article:
 Basic Science Test 8: Winter 2007 (publication date February 15, 2007; expi...
Shoulder/Elbow Test 17: Winter 2007 (publication date February 15, 2007; ex...
Sports Test 10: Winter 2007 (publication date February 15, 2007; expiration...
CME 4: October, November, December 2006 (publication date January 5, 2007; ...
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Valentin, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Badylak, S. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Valentin, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Badylak, S. F.
Related Collections
Right arrow Basic Science
Right arrow Sports
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Extracellular Matrix Bioscaffolds for Orthopaedic Applications

A Comparative Histologic Study

Jolene E. Valentin, BS1, John S. Badylak, MD2, George P. McCabe, PhD3 and Stephen F. Badylak, DVM, PhD, MD1

1 McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 100 Technology Drive, Suite 200, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. E-mail address for S.F. Badylak: badylaks{at}upmc.edu
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison,WI 53792-3236
3 Department of Statistics, Purdue University, 1399 Mathematical Science Building, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1399

Investigation performed at McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

In support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received grants or outside funding from DePuy, Inc. and the National Institutes of Health (Grant #EB000261). None of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: Biologic scaffold materials prepared from extracellular matrix are currently available for the surgical repair of damaged or missing musculotendinous tissue. These scaffolds differ in their species and tissue of origin, methods of processing, and methods of terminal sterilization. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the host-tissue morphologic response to five commercially available extracellular matrix-derived biologic scaffolds used for orthopaedic soft-tissue repair in a rodent model.

Methods: One hundred twenty-six Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into six groups of twenty-one animals each. A defect was created in the musculotendinous tissue of the abdominal wall of each animal and then was repaired with one of five different scaffold materials (GraftJacket, Restore, CuffPatch, TissueMend, Permacol) or with the excised autologous tissue. Three animals from each group were killed at one of seven time-points after surgery (two, four, seven, fourteen, twenty-eight, fifty-six, and 112 days), and the specimens were examined with histologic and morphologic methods. The degree of cellular infiltration, multinucleated giant cell presence, vascularity, and organization of the replacement connective tissue were evaluated with semiquantitative methods.

Results: Each device elicited a distinct morphologic response that differed with respect to cellularity (p < 0.001), vascularity (p < 0.01), the presence of multinucleated giant cells (p < 0.01), and organization of the remodeled tissue (p < 0.01) at or after the Day 7 time-point. More rapidly degraded devices such as Restore and autologous tissue showed the greatest amount of cellular infiltration, especially at the early time-points. Devices that degraded slowly, such as CuffPatch, TissueMend, and Permacol, were associated with the presence of foreign-body giant cells, chronic inflammation, and/or the accumulation of dense, poorly organized fibrous tissue.

Conclusions: Biologic scaffold materials composed of extracellular matrix elicit distinct host-tissue histologic and morphologic responses, depending on species of origin, tissue of origin, processing methods, and/or method of terminal sterilization.

Clinical Relevance: The temporal sequence of remodeling events of extracellular matrix devices, including the rapidity of scaffold degradation and the extent of new-tissue deposition by the host, may be predictive of the clinical course and may determine the optimal rehabilitation protocol and functional outcome of the procedure.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?