Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Research

WEIGHT-ADAPTIVE COLLAGEN-POLYLACTIDE SCAFFOLD IN CARTILAGE REPAIR IN A PORCINE MODEL

The European Orthopaedic Research Society (EORS) 2018 Meeting, PART 3, Galway, Ireland, September 2018.



Abstract

Articular cartilage repair is assumed to improve by covering the cartilage lesion with a biomaterial scaffold tailored to the specific requirements of the weight-bearing joint surface. We have tested the feasibility of a novel composite collagen-polylactide scaffold rhCo-PLA in cartilage repair. To confirm these results and further challenge the scaffold, we tested it in a large porcine cartilage defect. A critical-sized full-thickness chondral defect was made in the medial femoral condyle of 18 domestic pigs. This technically widest possible defect size of 11×17 mm was determined in a pilot test. Five weeks later, the defect was either treated with the novel rhCo-PLA scaffold or left untreated to heal spontaneously. After four months, the medial condyles were evaluated macroscopically using Goebel's score, in which the worst possible result receives a total of 20 points and imaged with µCT to evaluate subchondral bone. Macroscopic score and subchondral bone microstructure were similar in both study groups. The total Goebel score was higher in spontaneous group (9.75±3.9 for spontaneous and 9.1±3.7 for rhCo-PLA, respectively) but differences between individual animals were large. Subchondral bone volume fraction was 48.2±3.6% for rhCo-PLA and 44.2±3.4% for spontaneous. Trabecular thickness was greater in operated joints (207.9±18.8 µm for spontaneous and 242.9±32.9 µm for rhCo-PLA) than in contralateral non-operated joints (193.3±15.1 µm and 213.4±33.2 µm, respectively). These preliminary data demonstrate that individual differences in the macroscopic appearance were large but there were no significant differences between the two study groups in the score or subchondral bone structure.


Email: