FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / J Orthop Res / A hybrid repair strategy for full-thickness cartilage defect...
Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society2024; doi: 10.1002/jor.25972

A hybrid repair strategy for full-thickness cartilage defects: Long-term experimental study in eight horses.

Abstract: The objective of this study was to evaluate a non-resorbable implant for the focal repair of chondral defects in eight adult horses with 12-month follow-up. The bi-layered construct composed of a polycarbonate-urethane-urea biomaterial which was printed in 3D fashion onto a bone anchor was implanted into surgically created osteochondral defects into the femoropatellar joints of eight horses. The analysis of post-mortem outcomes were compared to defects treated with microfracture in the same animal on the contralateral femoropatellar jointfemoropatellar joint. The overall macroscopic scoring after 12 months yielded higher scores in the OCI-treated stifles compared to MF treatment (p = 0.09) with better quality and filling of the defect. Histology revealed good anchorage of repair tissue growing into the 3D structure of the implant and histopathology scoring for adjacent native cartilage showed no difference between groups. MRI and micro-CT showed overall less sclerotic reactions in the surrounding bone in the implant group and no foreign body reaction was detected. Biomechanical analysis of the repair tissue revealed a significantly higher peak modulus (p < 0.05) in the implant group (0.74 ± 0.45) compared to the microfracture control group (0.15 ± 0.11). Dynamic loading yielded higher values for the repair tissue overgrowing the implant group (0.23 ± 0.17) compared to the microfracture control (0.06 ± 0.06) (p < 0.05). The bi-layered osteochondral implant provided a safe implant for focal repair of full-thickness osteochondral defects, as no adverse reaction was seen within the joints and the level of degeneration of adjacent cartilage to the repair site was not different compared to that seen in defects treated with microfracture after 12 months.
© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Orthopaedic Research® published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-09-18 PubMed ID: 39292194DOI: 10.1002/jor.25972Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research study examined the use of a non-resorbable implant for the repair of cartilage defects in horses. Compared to traditional microfracture treatment, the implant resulted in higher quality repair, less bone reaction, and stronger biomechanical properties.

Research Context and Objective

  • This study evaluated a non-resorbable implant designed for focal (localised) repair of chondral (cartilage) defects.
  • The research involved a long-term experimental trial using eight adult horses, with an observation period lasting 12 months.
  • The main objective was to compare the efficacy and potential improvements offered by the new implant technique against the traditional microfracture treatment.

Methodology and Process

  • The implant used in this study was a bi-layered construct made up of a polycarbonate-urethane-urea biomaterial. This biomaterial was 3D printed onto a bone anchor for implantation.
  • The experiment involved surgically creating osteochondral defects in the femoropatellar joints of the horses. These defects were then treated with the above-mentioned bi-layered implant.
  • For comparison, defects were treated with traditional microfracture treatment on the same animal’s opposite femoropatellar joint.

Results and Findings

  • On macroscopic scoring, performed after 12 months, the implant treated defects scored higher than those treated through microfracture, denoting better quality and filling of the defect.
  • Microscopic examination revealed the repair tissues anchored well into the 3D structure of the implant.
  • Imaging tests (MRI and micro-CT scans) showed lesser sclerotic reactions (hardening of tissues) in the adjoining bones in the implant group. Additionally, no foreign body reaction was detected, indicating that the implants were well tolerated by the animals’ bodies.
  • Biomechanical testing showed that the elasticity or resistance of the repair tissue was significantly higher in the implant group, indicating stronger repair.
  • Furthermore, dynamic loading tests demonstrated improved mechanical performance of the repair tissues overgrowing the implant, as compared to the microfracture control treatment.

Conclusion

  • The bi-layered osteochondral implant has been effective and safe as a method for focal repair of osteochondral defects in horses. It showed no adverse reactions within the joints during the 12-month observation period.
  • In addition, the degeneration level of the adjacent cartilage to the repair site was not different compared to defects treated with the microfracture technique, suggesting that the implant did not cause harm to surrounding tissues.
  • These findings suggest that the implant may represent a promising alternative to conventional microfracture treatments for full-thickness osteochondral defects.

Cite This Article

APA
Fugazzola MC, De Ruijter M, Veraa S, Plomp S, van Buul W, Hermsen G, van Weeren R. (2024). A hybrid repair strategy for full-thickness cartilage defects: Long-term experimental study in eight horses. J Orthop Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.25972

Publication

Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society
ISSN: 1554-527X
NlmUniqueID: 8404726
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

Fugazzola, Maria C
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
De Ruijter, Mylène
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Department of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Veraa, Stefanie
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Plomp, Saskia
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Department of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
van Buul, Ward
  • Joinstphere Company, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Hermsen, Gied
  • Joinstphere Company, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
van Weeren, René
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Grant Funding

  • Jointsphere B.V.

References

This article includes 39 references
  1. Hunziker EB. Articular cartilage repair: are the intrinsic biological constraints undermining this process insuperable?. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 1999;7(1):15‐28.
    doi: 10.1053/joca.1998.0159google scholar: lookup
  2. Mankin HJ. The response of articular cartilage to mechanical injury.. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982;64(3):460‐466.
  3. Heinemeier KM, Schjerling P, Heinemeier J. Radiocarbon dating reveals minimal collagen turnover in both healthy and osteoarthritic human cartilage.. Sci Transl Med 2016;8(346):346ra90.
    doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aad8335google scholar: lookup
  4. Malda J, Groll J, van Weeren PR. Rethinking articular cartilage regeneration based on a 250‐year‐old statement.. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2019:15(10):571‐572.
    doi: 10.1038/s41584-019-0278-7google scholar: lookup
  5. Chen X, Tang H, Lin J, Zeng R. Temporal trends in the disease burden of osteoarthritis from 1990 to 2019, and projections until 2030.. PLoS One 2023;18(7):e0288561.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288561google scholar: lookup
  6. Klug A, Gramlich Y, Rudert M. The projected volume of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty will place an immense burden on future heath care systems over the next 30 years.. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020:29(10):3287‐3298.
    doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06154-7google scholar: lookup
  7. Martinez‐Carranza N, Hultenby K, Lagerstedt AS, Schupbach P, Berg HE. Cartilage health in knees treated with metal resurfacing implants or untreated focal cartilage lesions: a preclinical study in sheep.. Cartilage 2019;10(1):120‐128.
    doi: 10.1177/1947603517720260google scholar: lookup
  8. Martinez‐Carranza N, Ryd L, Hultenby K. Treatment of full thickness focal cartilage lesions with a metallic resurfacing implant in a sheep animal model, 1 year evaluation.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2016;24(3):484‐493.
    doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2015.09.009google scholar: lookup
  9. Husby KA, Reed SK, Wilson DA. Evaluation of a permanent synthetic osteochondral implant in the equine medial femoral condyle.. Vet Surg 2016;45(3):364‐373.
    doi: 10.1111/vsu.12453google scholar: lookup
  10. Nathwani D, McNicholas M, Hart A, Miles J, Bobić V. Partial resurfacing of the knee with the BioPoly implant.. JBJS Open Access 2017;2(2):e0011.
    doi: 10.2106/jbjs.oa.16.00011google scholar: lookup
  11. Danielski A, Farrell M. Use of synthetic osteochondral implants to treat bilateral shoulder osteochondritis dissecans in a dog.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2018;31:385‐389.
    doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1651517google scholar: lookup
  12. Becher C, Kalbe C, Thermann H. Minimum 5‐year results of focal articular prosthetic resurfacing for the treatment of full‐thickness articular cartilage defects in the knee. 2011;131(8):1135‐1143.
    doi: 10.1007/s00402-011-1323-4google scholar: lookup
  13. Damen AHA, Nickien M, Ito K, van Donkelaar CC. The performance of resurfacing implants for focal cartilage defects depends on the degenerative condition of the opposing cartilage.. Clin Biomech 2020;79:105052.
    doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105052google scholar: lookup
  14. Fugazzola MC, Golafshan N, van Aken JA. 3D printed and punched porous surfaces of a non‐resorbable, biphasic implant for the repair of osteochondral lesions improves repair tissue adherence and ingrowth.. Vol 39, 2023;39(6):504‐514.
    doi: 10.21836/pemfugazollagoogle scholar: lookup
  15. Kreuz PC, Steinwachs MR, Erggelet C. Results after microfracture of full‐thickness chondral defects in different compartments in the knee.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006;14(11):1119‐1125.
    doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2006.05.003google scholar: lookup
  16. Mithoefer K, McAdams T, Williams RJ, Kreuz PC, Mandelbaum BR. Clinical efficacy of the microfracture technique for articular cartilage repair in the knee.. Am J Sports Med 2009;37(10):2053‐2063.
    doi: 10.1177/0363546508328414google scholar: lookup
  17. Kreuz PC, Erggelet C, Steinwachs MR. Is microfracture of chondral defects in the knee associated with different results in patients aged 40 years or younger?. Arthroscopy 2006;22(11):1180‐1186.
    doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.06.020google scholar: lookup
  18. Erggelet C, Vavken P. Microfracture for the treatment of cartilage defects in the knee joint—a golden standard?. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2016;7(3):145‐152.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2016.06.015google scholar: lookup
  19. McIlwraith CW, Fortier LA, Frisbie DD, Nixon AJ. Equine models of articular cartilage repair.. Cartilage 2011;2(4):317‐326.
    doi: 10.1177/1947603511406531google scholar: lookup
  20. Grässel S, Aszódi A. Animal models in cartilage repair.. Cartilage 2017;3(4):89‐94.
    doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-53316-2google scholar: lookup
  21. Chu CR, Szczodry M, Bruno S. Animal models for cartilage regeneration.. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2010;16(1):105‐115.
    doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0452google scholar: lookup
  22. Golafshan N, Willemsen K, Kadumudi FB. 3D‐printed regenerative magnesium phosphate implant ensures stability and restoration of hip dysplasia.. Adv Healthcare Mater 2021;10:2101051.
    doi: 10.1002/adhm.202101051google scholar: lookup
  23. McIlwraith CW, Frisbie DD. Microfracture: basic science studies in the horse.. Cartilage 2010;1(2):87‐95.
    doi: 10.1177/1947603510367427google scholar: lookup
  24. Van Den Borne MPJ, Raijmakers NJH, Vanlauwe J. International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) and Oswestry macroscopic cartilage evaluation scores validated for use in Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI) and microfracture 1.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007;15(12):1397‐1402.
    doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.05.005google scholar: lookup
  25. McIlwraith CW, Frisbie DD, Kawcak CE, Fuller CJ, Hurtig M, Cruz A. The OARSI histopathology initiative—recommendations for histological assessments of osteoarthritis in the horse.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010;18(suppl 3):17‐23.
    doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2010.05.031google scholar: lookup
  26. Goldring MB, Goldring SR. Articular cartilage and subchondral bone in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis.. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2010;1192:230‐237.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05240.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  27. Pastoureau P, Leduc S, Chomel A, De Ceuninck F. Quantitative assessment of articular cartilage and subchondral bone histology in the meniscectomized Guinea pig model of osteoarthritis.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2003;11(6):412‐423.
    doi: 10.1016/s1063-4584(03)00050-5google scholar: lookup
  28. Barr AJ, Campbell TM, Hopkinson D, Kingsbury SR, Bowes MA, Conaghan PG. A systematic review of the relationship between subchondral bone features, pain and structural pathology in peripheral joint osteoarthritis.. Arthritis Res Ther 2015;17(1):228.
    doi: 10.1186/s13075-015-0735-xgoogle scholar: lookup
  29. Botter SM, Glasson SS, Hopkins B. ADAMTS5‐/‐ mice have less subchondral bone changes after induction of osteoarthritis through surgical instability: implications for a link between cartilage and subchondral bone changes.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009;17(5):636‐645.
    doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2008.09.018google scholar: lookup
  30. Buckland‐Wright C. Subchondral bone changes in hand and knee osteoarthritis detected by radiography.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2004;12(SUPLL.):10‐19.
    doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2003.09.007google scholar: lookup
  31. Day JS, Ding M, Van Der Linden JC, Hvid I, Sumner DR, Weinans H. A decreased subchondral trabecular bone tissue elastic modulus is associated with pre‐arthritic cartilage damage.. J Orthop Res 2001;19(5):914‐918.
    doi: 10.1016/s0736-0266(01)00012-2google scholar: lookup
  32. Kobayashi M, Hyu HS. Development and evaluation of polyvinyl alcohol‐hydrogels as an artificial atrticular cartilage for orthopedic implants.. Materials 2010;3(4):2753‐2771.
    doi: 10.3390/ma3042753google scholar: lookup
  33. Maher SA, Doty SB, Torzilli PA. Nondegradable hydrogels for the treatment of focal cartilage defects.. J Biomed Mater Res A 2007;83(1):145‐155.
    doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.31255google scholar: lookup
  34. Diloksumpan A, Abinzano P, Ruijter F, de M. The complexity of joint regeneration: how an advanced implant could fail by its in vivo proven bone component.. J Trial Error 2021;2(1):7‐25.
    doi: 10.36850/e3google scholar: lookup
  35. Krych AJ, Wanivenhaus F, Ng KW, Doty S, Warren RF, Maher SA. Matrix generation within a macroporous non‐degradable implant for osteochondral defects is not enhanced with partial enzymatic digestion of the surrounding tissue: evaluation in an in vivo rabbit model.. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2013;24(10):2429‐2437.
    doi: 10.1007/s10856-013-4999-xgoogle scholar: lookup
  36. Kienapfel H, Sprey C, Wilke A, Griss P. Implant fixation by bone ingrowth.. J Arthroplasty 1999;14(3):355‐368.
    doi: 10.1016/s0883-5403(99)90063-3google scholar: lookup
  37. Chu CR, Szczodry M, Bruno S. Animal models for cartilage regeneration and repair.. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2010;16(1):105‐115.
    doi: 10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0452google scholar: lookup
  38. Frisbie DD, Cross MW, McIlwraith CW. A comparative study of articular cartilage thickness in the stifle of animal species used in human pre‐clinical studies compared to articular cartilage thickness in the human knee.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2006;19(5):142‐146.
  39. Malda J, Benders KEM, Klein TJ. Comparative study of depth‐dependent characteristics of equine and human osteochondral tissue from the medial and lateral femoral condyles.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012;20(10):1147‐1151.
    doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2012.06.005google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,001 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.