Tendon is a bradytrophic and hypovascular tissue, hence, healing remains a major challenge. The molecular key events involved in successful repair have to be unravelled to develop novel strategies that reduce the risk of unfavourable outcomes such as non-healing, adhesion formation, and scarring. This review will consider the diverse pathophysiological features of tendon-derived cells that lead to failed healing, including misrouted differentiation (e.g. de- or transdifferentiation) and premature cell senescence, as well as the loss of functional progenitors. Many of these features can be attributed to disturbed cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) or unbalanced soluble mediators involving not only resident tendon cells, but also the cross-talk with immigrating immune cell populations. Unrestrained post-traumatic inflammation could hinder successful healing. Pro-angiogenic mediators trigger hypervascularization and lead to persistence of an immature repair tissue, which does not provide sufficient mechano-competence. Tendon repair tissue needs to achieve an ECM composition, structure, strength, and stiffness that resembles the undamaged highly hierarchically ordered tendon ECM. Adequate mechano-sensation and -transduction by tendon cells orchestrate ECM synthesis, stabilization by cross-linking, and remodelling as a prerequisite for the adaptation to the increased mechanical challenges during healing. Lastly, this review will discuss, from the cell biological point of view, possible optimization strategies for augmenting Achilles tendon (AT) healing outcomes, including adapted mechanostimulation and novel approaches by restraining neoangiogenesis, modifying stem cell niche parameters, tissue engineering, the modulation of the inflammatory cells, and the application of stimulatory factors.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(8):561–574.

Aims

To verify whether secretory leucocyte protease inhibitor (SLPI) can promote early tendon-to-bone healing after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Objectives. Re-rupture is common after primary flexor tendon repair. Characterization of the biological changes in the ruptured tendon stumps would be helpful, not only to understand the biological responses to the failed tendon repair, but also to investigate if the tendon stumps could be used as a recycling biomaterial for tendon regeneration in the secondary grafting surgery. Methods. A canine flexor tendon repair and failure model was used. Following six weeks of repair failure, the tendon stumps were analyzed and characterized as isolated tendon-derived stem cells (TDSCs). Results. Failed-repair stump tissue showed cellular accumulation of crumpled and disoriented collagen fibres. Compared with normal tendon, stump tissue had significantly higher gene expression of collagens I and III, matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), and insulin-like growth factor (IGF). The stump TDSCs presented both mesenchymal stem and haematopoietic cell markers with significantly increased expression of CD34, CD44, and CD90 markers. Stump TDSCs exhibited similar migration but a lower proliferation rate, as well as similar osteogenic differentiation but a lower chondrogenic/adipogenic differentiation capability, compared with normal TDSCs. Stump TDSCs also showed increasing levels of SRY-box 2 (Sox2), octamer-binding transcription factor 4 (Oct4), tenomodulin (TNMD), and scleraxis (Scx) protein and gene expression. Conclusion. We found that a failed repair stump had increased cellularity that preserved both mesenchymal and haematopoietic stem cell characteristics, with higher collagen synthesis, MMP, and growth factor gene expression. This study provides evidence that tendon stump tissue has regenerative potential. Cite this article: C-C. Lu, T. Zhang, R. L. Reisdorf, P. C. Amadio, K-N. An, S. L. Moran, A. Gingery, C. Zhao. Biological analysis of flexor tendon repair-failure stump tissue: A potential recycling of tissue for tendon regeneration. Bone Joint Res 2019;8:232–245. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.86.BJR-2018-0239.R1