Comparison of amniotic membrane versus the induced membrane for bone regeneration in long bone segmental defects using calcium phosphate cement loaded with BMP-2.

Fiche publication

Date publication

mai 2021

Journal

Materials science & engineering. C, Materials for biological applications

Auteurs

Membres identifiés du Cancéropôle Est :
Dr GINDRAUX Florelle

Tous les auteurs :
Fenelon M, Etchebarne M, Siadous R, Grémare A, Durand M, Sentilhes L, Catros S, Gindraux F, L'Heureux N, Fricain JC

Lien Pubmed

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33947534

Résumé

Thanks to its biological properties, the human amniotic membrane (HAM) combined with a bone substitute could be a single-step surgical alternative to the two-step Masquelet induced membrane (IM) technique for regeneration of critical bone defects. However, no study has directly compared these two membranes. We first designed a 3D-printed scaffold using calcium phosphate cement (CPC). We assessed its suitability in vitro to support human bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells (hBMSCs) attachment and osteodifferentiation. We then performed a rat femoral critical size defect to compare the two-step IM technique with a single-step approach using the HAM. Five conditions were compared. Group 1 was left empty. Group 2 received the CPC scaffold loaded with rh-BMP2 (CPC/BMP2). Group 3 and 4 received the CPC/BMP2 scaffold covered with lyophilized or decellularized/lyophilized HAM. Group 5 underwent a two- step induced membrane procedure with insertion of a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) spacer followed by, after 4 weeks, its replacement with the CPC/BMP2 scaffold wrapped in the IM. Micro-CT and histomorphometric analysis were performed after six weeks. Results showed that the CPC scaffold supported the proliferation and osteodifferentiation of hBMSCs in vitro. In vivo, the CPC/BMP2 scaffold very efficiently induced bone formation and led to satisfactory healing of the femoral defect, in a single-step, without autograft or the need for any membrane covering. In this study, there was no difference between the two-step induced membrane procedure and a single step approach. However, the results indicated that none of the tested membranes further enhanced bone healing compared to the CPC/BMP2 group.