Characterization of the Anchoring Morphology and Mineral Content of the Anterior Cruciate and Medial Collateral Ligaments of the Knee

Advanced strategies for constructing interfacial tissues of bone and tendon/ligament

Enthesis, the interfacial tissue between a tendon/ligament and bone, exhibits a complex histological transition from soft to hard tissue, which significantly complicates its repair and regeneration after injury. Because traditional surgical treatments for enthesis injury are not satisfactory, tissue engineering has emerged as a strategy for improving treatment success. Rapid advances in enthesis tissue engineering have led to the development of several strategies for promoting enthesis tissue regeneration, including biological scaffolds, cells, growth factors, and biophysical modulation. In this review, we discuss recent advances in enthesis tissue engineering, particularly the use of biological scaffolds, as well as perspectives on the future directions in enthesis tissue engineering.

Joining soft tissues to bone: Insights from modeling and simulations

Entheses are complex multi-tissue regions of the musculoskeletal system serving the challenging task of connecting highly dissimilar materials such as the compliant tendon to the much stiffer bone, over a very small region. The first aim of this review is to highlight mathematical and computational models that have been developed to investigate the many attachment strategies present at entheses at different length scales. Entheses are also relevant in the medical context due to the high prevalence of orthopedic injuries requiring the reattachment of tendons or ligaments to bone, which are associated with a rather poor long-term clinical outcome. The second aim of the review is to report on the computational works analyzing the whole tendon to bone complex as well as targeting orthopedic relevant issues. Modeling approaches have provided important insights on anchoring mechanisms and surgical repair strategies, that would not have been revealed with experiments alone. We intend to demonstrate the necessity of including, in future models, an enriched description of enthesis biomechanical behavior in order to unravel additional mechanical cues underlying the development, the functioning and the maintaining of such a complex biological interface as well as to enhance the development of novel biomimetic adhesive, attachment procedures or tissue engineered implants.

Host bone response to polyetheretherketone versus porous tantalum implants for cervical spinal fusion in a goat model

STUDY DESIGN

In vivo assessment of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and porous tantalum (TM) cervical interbody fusion devices in a goat model.

OBJECTIVE

Directly compare host bone response to PEEK and TM devices used for cervical interbody fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

PEEK devices are widely used for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion but are nonporous and have limited surface area for bone attachment.

METHODS

Twenty-five goats underwent single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and were alternately implanted with TM (n = 13) or PEEK devices (n = 12) for 6, 12, and 26 weeks. Both devices contained a center graft hole (GH), filled with autograft bone from the animal's own iliac crest. The percentage of bone tissue around the implant, percentage of the implant surface in direct apposition with the host bone, and evidence of bone bridging through the implant GH were assessed by using backscattered electron imaging. Bone matrix mineral apposition rate was determined through fluorochrome double labeling, and sections were stained for histological analysis.

RESULTS

The TM-implanted animals had significantly greater volumes of bone tissue at the implant interface than the PEEK animals at all-time points. The TM animals also had a significantly greater average mineral apposition rate in the GH region at 6 and 12 weeks than the PEEK animals. No difference was observed at 26 weeks. A greater number of TM-implanted animals demonstrated connection between the autograft bone and both vertebrae compared with the PEEK implants. Histological staining also showed that the TM devices elicited improved host bone attachment over the PEEK implants.

CONCLUSION

The TM implants supported bone growth into and around the implant margins better than the PEEK devices. TM's open cell porous structure facilitated host bone ingrowth and bone bridging through the device, which could be beneficial for long-term mechanical attachment and support in clinical applications.