Novel Osteochondral Biotemplate Improves Long-term Cartilage Repair Compared With Microfracture in an Ovine Model

Abstract

Background: Current cartilage repair therapies do not re-create the complex mechanical interface between cartilage and bone, which is critical for long-term repair durability. New biomaterial designs that include hard tissue–soft tissue interface structures offer promise to improve clinical outcomes. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a naturally derived osteochondral biotemplate with a novel contiguous hard tissue–soft tissue interface in an ovine model as a regenerative solution for articular cartilage defects. It was hypothesized that the osteochondral biotemplate would produce structurally superior repair tissue compared with microfracture over a 13-month period. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Osteochondral biotemplates were manufactured from porcine cancellous bone. Skeletally mature sheep (N = 30) were randomly allocated to 3 groups: early healing stage (euthanasia at 4 months), 6-month treatment, and 13-month treatment. In the early healing stage group, an 8 mm–diameter by 5 mm–deep osteochondral defect was created on the medial femoral condyle and treated at the time of iatrogenic injury with an osteochondral biotemplate. The contralateral limb received the same treatment 2 months later. In the 6- and 13-month treatment groups, 1 limb received the same osteochondral procedure as the early healing stage group. In the contralateral limb, an 8 mm–diameter, full-thickness cartilage defect (1-2 mm deep) was created and treated with microfracture. Cartilage repair and integration were quantitatively and qualitatively assessed with gross inspection, histological evaluation, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Wilcoxon signed-rank and McNemar tests were used to compare the treatments. Results: At 6 and 13 months after treatment, the biotemplate was not present histologically. At 13 months, the biotemplate treatment demonstrated statistically higher histological scores than microfracture for integration with surrounding cartilage (biotemplate: 74 ± 31; microfracture: 28 ± 39; P = .03), type 2 collagen (biotemplate: 72 ± 33; microfracture: 40 ± 38; P = .02), total cartilage (biotemplate: 71 ± 9; microfracture: 59 ± 9; P = .01), and total integration (biotemplate: 85 ± 15; microfracture: 66 ± 20; P = .04). The osteochondral biotemplate treatment produced a notable transient nonneutrophilic inflammatory response that appeared to approach resolution at 13 months. MRI results were not statistically different between the 2 treatments. Conclusion: Even with the inflammatory response, after 13 months, the osteochondral biotemplate outperformed microfracture in cartilage regeneration and demonstrated superiority in integration between the repair tissue and host tissue as well as integration between the newly formed cartilage and the underlying bone. Clinical Relevance: This work has demonstrated the clinical potential of a novel biomaterial template to regenerate the complex mechanical interface between cartilage and the subchondral bone.

Isolating Poroelastic and Viscoelastic Mechanisms of Soft Tissues and Hydrogels Through Sequential Microscale Indentation Testing: New Applications of Indentation Theory for Microscale Characterization

“…Poroelasticity affects solute movement at multiple scales, thus influencing nutrient transport to and from cells, as well as local signaling between cells. Additionally, fluid movement provides other biophysical cues including hydrostatic pressures and shear stresses acting on cells [24,25].…”

“…Poroelasticity affects solute movement at multiple scales, thus influencing nutrient transport to and from cells, as well as local signaling between cells. Additionally, fluid movement provides other biophysical cues including hydrostatic pressures and shear stresses acting on cells [24,25]. The solid skeleton of soft hydrated materials can undergo a second mode of rearrangement, characterized by the sliding of solid components, polymeric unfolding, and the relatively rapid dissociation of weak bonds.…”