Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A novel nano-structured porous polycaprolactone scaffold improves hyaline cartilage repair in a rabbit model compared to a collagen type I/III scaffold: in vitro and in vivo studies

  • Experimental Study
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

To develop a nano-structured porous polycaprolactone (NSP-PCL) scaffold and compare the articular cartilage repair potential with that of a commercially available collagen type I/III (Chondro-Gide®) scaffold.

Methods

By combining rapid prototyping and thermally induced phase separation, the NSP-PCL scaffold was produced for matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte implantation. Lyophilizing a water–dioxane–PCL solution created micro and nano-pores. In vitro: The scaffolds were seeded with rabbit chondrocytes and cultured in hypoxia for 6 days. qRT–PCR was performed using primers for sox9, aggrecan, collagen type 1 and 2. In vivo: 15 New Zealand White Rabbits received bilateral osteochondral defects in the femoral intercondylar grooves. Autologous chondrocytes were harvested 4 weeks prior to surgery. There were 3 treatment groups: (1) NSP-PCL scaffold without cells. (2) The Chondro-Gide® scaffold with autologous chondrocytes and (3) NSP-PCL scaffold with autologous chondrocytes. Observation period was 13 weeks. Histological evaluation was made using the O’Driscoll score.

Results

In vitro: The expressions of sox9 and aggrecan were higher in the NSP-PCL scaffold, while expression of collagen 1 was lower compared to the Chondro-Gide® scaffold. In vivo: Both NSP-PCL scaffolds with and without cells scored significantly higher than the Chondro-Gide® scaffold when looking at the structural integrity and the surface regularity of the repair tissue. No differences were found between the NSP-PCL scaffold with and without cells.

Conclusion

The NSP-PCL scaffold demonstrated higher in vitro expression of chondrogenic markers and had higher in vivo histological scores compared to the Chondro-Gide® scaffold. The improved chondrocytic differentiation can potentially produce more hyaline cartilage during clinical cartilage repair. It appears to be a suitable cell-free implant for hyaline cartilage repair and could provide a less costly and more effective treatment option than the Chondro-Gide® scaffold with cells.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Behrens P, Bitter T, Kurz B, Russlies M (2006) Matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation/implantation (MACT/MACI): 5-year follow-up. Knee 13:194–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Behrens P, Bosch U, Bruns J, Erggelet C, Esenwein SA, Gaissmaier C, Krackhardt T, Lohnert J, Marlovits S, Meenen NM, Mollenhauer J, Nehrer S, Niethard FU, Noth U, Perka C, Richter W, Schafer D, Schneider U, Steinwachs M, Weise K (2004) Indications and implementation of recommendations of the working group “tissue regeneration and tissue substitutes” for autologous chondrocyte transplantation (ACT). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 142:529–539

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Benthien JP, Behrens P (2010) Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC). A one-step procedure for retropatellar articular resurfacing. Acta Orthop Belg 76:260–263

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brittberg M, Lindahl A, Nilsson A, Ohlsson C, Isaksson O, Peterson L (1994) Treatment of deep cartilage defects in the knee with autologous chondrocyte transplantation. N Engl J Med 331:889–895

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Buckwalter JA, Mankin HJ (1998) Articular cartilage: degeneration and osteoarthritis, repair, regeneration, and transplantation. Instr Course Lect 47:487–504

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Discher DE, Janmey P, Wang YL (2005) Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science 310:1139–1143

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ehlers EM, Fuss M, Rohwedel J, Russlies M, Kuhnel W, Behrens P (1999) Development of a biocomposite to fill out articular cartilage lesions. Light, scanning and transmission electron microscopy of sheep chondrocytes cultured on a collagen I/III sponge. Ann Anat 181:513–518

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Engler AJ, Sen S, Sweeney HL, Discher DE (2006) Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 126:677–689

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Haddo O, Mahroof S, Higgs D, David L, Pringle J, Bayliss M, Cannon SR, Briggs TW (2004) The use of chondrogide membrane in autologous chondrocyte implantation. Knee 11:51–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hall FM, Wyshak G (1980) Thickness of articular cartilage in the normal knee. J Bone Jt Surg Am 62:408–413

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hattori T, Muller C, Gebhard S, Bauer E, Pausch F, Schlund B, Bosl MR, Hess A, Surmann-Schmitt C, von der Mark H, de Crombrugghe B, von der Mark K (2010) SOX9 is a major negative regulator of cartilage vascularization, bone marrow formation and endochondral ossification. Development 137:901–911

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ho ST, Hutmacher DW, Ekaputra AK, Hitendra D, Hui JH (2010) The evaluation of a biphasic osteochondral implant coupled with an electrospun membrane in a large animal model. Tiss Eng Part A 16:1123–1141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hunziker EB (2002) Articular cartilage repair: basic science and clinical progress. A review of the current status and prospects. Osteoarthr Cartil 10:432–463

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kon E, Filardo G, Condello V, Collarile M, Di Martino A, Zorzi C, Marcacci M (2011) Second-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation: results in patients older than 40 years. Am J Sports Med 39:1668–1675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Krishnan SP, Skinner JA, Carrington RW, Flanagan AM, Briggs TW, Bentley G (2006) Collagen-covered autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondritis dissecans of the knee: 2–7-year results. J Bone Jt Surg Br 88:203–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kubo S, Cooper GM, Matsumoto T, Phillippi JA, Corsi KA, Usas A, Li G, Fu FH, Huard J (2009) Blocking vascular endothelial growth factor with soluble Flt-1 improves the chondrogenic potential of mouse skeletal muscle-derived stem cells. Arthritis Rheum 60:155–165

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lam CX, Hutmacher DW, Schantz JT, Woodruff MA, Teoh SH (2009) Evaluation of polycaprolactone scaffold degradation for 6 months in vitro and in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res A 90:906–919

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Maehara H, Sotome S, Yoshii T, Torigoe I, Kawasaki Y, Sugata Y, Yuasa M, Hirano M, Mochizuki N, Kikuchi M, Shinomiya K, Okawa A (2010) Repair of large osteochondral defects in rabbits using porous hydroxyapatite/collagen (HAp/Col) and fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2). J Orthop Res 28:677–686

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Martinez-Diaz S, Garcia-Giralt N, Lebourg M, Gomez-Tejedor JA, Vila G, Caceres E, Benito P, Pradas MM, Nogues X, Ribelles JL, Monllau JC (2010) In vivo evaluation of 3-D polycaprolactone scaffolds for cartilage repair in rabbits. Am J Sports Med 38:509–519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Minas T, Nehrer S (1997) Current concepts in the treatment of articular cartilage defects. Orthopedics 20:525–538

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mrosek EH, Schagemann JC, Chung HW, Fitzsimmons JS, Yaszemski MJ, Mardones RM, O’Driscoll SW, Reinholz GG (2010) Porous tantalum and poly-epsilon-caprolactone biocomposites for osteochondral defect repair: preliminary studies in rabbits. J Orthop Res 28:141–148

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ng KW, Hutmacher DW, Schantz JT, Ng CS, Too HP, Lim TC, Phan TT, Teoh SH (2001) Evaluation of ultra-thin poly(epsilon-caprolactone) films for tissue-engineered skin. Tiss Eng 7:441–455

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Niemeyer P, Pestka JM, Kreuz PC, Erggelet C, Schmal H, Suedkamp NP, Steinwachs M (2008) Characteristic complications after autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects of the knee joint. Am J Sports Med 36:2091–2099

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Driscoll SW, Keeley FW, Salter RB (1988) Durability of regenerated articular cartilage produced by free autogenous periosteal grafts in major full-thickness defects in joint surfaces under the influence of continuous passive motion. A follow-up report at 1 year. J Bone Jt Surg Am 70:595–606

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pfaffl MW, Tichopad A, Prgomet C, Neuvians TP (2004) Determination of stable housekeeping genes, differentially regulated target genes and sample integrity: best keeper–excel-based tool using pair-wise correlations. Biotechnol Lett 26:509–515

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pitt CG, Gratzl MM, Kimmel GL, Surles J, Schindler A (1981) Aliphatic polyesters II. The degradation of poly (dl-lactide), poly (epsilon-caprolactone), and their copolymers in vivo. Biomaterials 2:215–220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Reinholz GG, Lu L, Saris DB, Yaszemski MJ, O’Driscoll SW (2004) Animal models for cartilage reconstruction. Biomaterials 25:1511–1521

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Russlies M, Ruther P, Koller W, Stomberg P, Behrens P (2003) Biomechanical properties of cartilage repair tissue after different cartilage repair procedures in sheep. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 141:465–471

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Shao XX, Hutmacher DW, Ho ST, Goh JC, Lee EH (2006) Evaluation of a hybrid scaffold/cell construct in repair of high-load-bearing osteochondral defects in rabbits. Biomaterials 27:1071–1080

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Steinert AF, Ghivizzani SC, Rethwilm A, Tuan RS, Evans CH, Noth U (2007) Major biological obstacles for persistent cell-based regeneration of articular cartilage. Arthritis Res Ther 9:213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Woodward SC, Brewer PS, Moatamed F, Schindler A, Pitt CG (1985) The intracellular degradation of poly(epsilon-caprolactone). J Biomed Mater Res 19:437–444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Yamashita S, Andoh M, Ueno-Kudoh H, Sato T, Miyaki S, Asahara H (2009) Sox9 directly promotes Bapx1 gene expression to repress Runx2 in chondrocytes. Exp Cell Res 315:2231–2240

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Anna Bay Nielsen, Anette Baatrup, Jane Pauli, Jonas Jensen from the Orthopaedic Research Laboratory and Steffen Ringgaard from the MR-Research Centre at Aarhus University Hospital for expert technical assistance. Funding was provided from the Individualized Musculoskeletal Regeneration and Reconstruction Network. Project no. 8415, grant holder: Cody Eric Bünger.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Aarhus University Hospital, Nørrebrogade 44, Build. 1A, 1. Floor, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Bjørn Borsøe Christensen, Casper Bindzus Foldager, Ole Møller Hansen & Cody Erik Bünger

  2. Interdisciplinary Nanoscience Center, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 120, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Asger Albæk Kristiansen, Dang Quang Svend Le & Jens Vinge Nygaard

  3. Department of Radiology, Silkeborg Regional Hospital, Falkevej 1-3, 8600, Silkeborg, Denmark

    Agnete Desirée Nielsen

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Sports Trauma Clinic, Aarhus University Hospital, Tage Hansens Gade 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Martin Lind

Authors
  1. Bjørn Borsøe Christensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Casper Bindzus Foldager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ole Møller Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Asger Albæk Kristiansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dang Quang Svend Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Agnete Desirée Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jens Vinge Nygaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Cody Erik Bünger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Martin Lind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bjørn Borsøe Christensen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Christensen, B.B., Foldager, C.B., Hansen, O.M. et al. A novel nano-structured porous polycaprolactone scaffold improves hyaline cartilage repair in a rabbit model compared to a collagen type I/III scaffold: in vitro and in vivo studies. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20, 1192–1204 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1692-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1692-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation