Comparison of compositional MRI techniques to quantify the regenerative potential of articular cartilage: a preclinical minipig model after osteochondral defect treatments with autologous mesenchymal stromal cells and unseeded scaffolds

比较组合磁共振成像技术量化关节软骨再生潜力:用自体间充质基质细胞和未接种支架治疗骨软骨缺损后的临床前小型猪模型

阅读:9
作者:Karl Ludger Radke, Vera Grotheer, Benedikt Kamp, Anja Müller-Lutz, Justus Kertscher, Rosanna Strunk, Petros Martirosian, Birte Valentin, Hans-Jörg Wittsack, Martin Sager, Joachim Windolf, Gerald Antoch, Erik Schiffner, Pascal Jungbluth, Miriam Frenken

Background

The field of orthopedics seeks effective, safer

Conclusions

As expected, dGEMRIC is well suited for monitoring cartilage regeneration. Interestingly, T2 imaging also proved to be a reliable cartilage imaging technique and thus offers a contrast agent-free alternative to the former gold standard for subsequent in vivo studies investigating the cartilage regeneration potential of different treatment modalities.

Methods

We employed ex vivo imaging in a preclinical minipig model to assess knee cartilage regeneration. Standardized osteochondral defects were drilled in the proximal femur of the specimens (n=14), which were divided into four groups. Porcine collagen scaffolds seeded with autologous adipose-derived stromal cells (ASC), autologous bone marrow stromal cells (BMSC), and unseeded scaffolds (US) were implanted in femoral defects. Furthermore, there was a defect group which received no treatment. After 6 months, the specimens were examined using different compositional MR methods, including the gold standard dGEMRIC as well as T1, T2, T2*, and T1ρ techniques. The statistical evaluation involved comparing the defect region with the uninjured tibia and femur cartilage layers and all measurements were performed on a clinical 3T MR Scanner.

Results

In the untreated defect group, we observed significant differences in the defect region, with dGEMRIC values significantly lower (404.86±64.2 ms, P=0.018) and T2 times significantly higher (44.24±2.75 ms, P<0.001). Contrastingly, in all three treatment groups (ASC, BMSC, US), there were no significant differences among the three regions in the dGEMRIC sequence, suggesting successful cartilage regeneration. However, T1, T2*, and T1ρ sequences failed to detect such differences, highlighting their lower sensitivity for cartilage regeneration. Conclusions: As expected, dGEMRIC is well suited for monitoring cartilage regeneration. Interestingly, T2 imaging also proved to be a reliable cartilage imaging technique and thus offers a contrast agent-free alternative to the former gold standard for subsequent in vivo studies investigating the cartilage regeneration potential of different treatment modalities.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。