Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Osteochondral grafting (OCG) is one treatment strategy for osteoarthritis with good clinical results. Decellularised tissues provide a promising alternative to standard autografts or allografts. This study aimed to compare the stability of traditional OCG and decellularised scaffolds upon initial implantation.
Methods
Host cubes (N=16) were extracted from porcine femoral condyles around an artificial defect hole. Grafts (N=11) were harvested from the trochlear groove; porcine decellularized osteochondral scaffold (N=5) were prepared. Each host was secured in fixtures and submerged in PBS at 37 ºC. Each graft or scaffold was press fit into one of the hosts, then pushed in for 5 mm, using an indenter (Instron3365) and pushed out in the opposite direction for 10 mm. Parameters analysed were the force required to initiate movement (Dislodging Force) and the maximum force (Max Force).
Results
The Dislodging Force of grafts (mean ± std. dev) was 133±15 N for the push in test and 109±11 N for the push out test. This was significantly higher than values for scaffolds: IN 24±1 N and OUT 26±5 N. The Max Force were also larger in the grafts than the scaffolds: IN 152±16 N vs. 41±4 N and OUT 118±14 N vs. 33±3 N.
Conclusions
The force required to dislodge a graft or scaffold from a host environment was similar for the push in test and the push out test, suggesting it is a good measure of initial stability. Upon initial implantation, the decellularised scaffolds were easier to dislodge than the OCG. Previously, the decellularisation process was found to soften bone, relative stiffness may thus be an important consideration in graft fixation. A greater press fit may be necessary for decellularised scaffolds in order to achieve the same level of graft stability as natural OCG when used in vivo.
Declaration of Interest
(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.
