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
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.
Mots clés
3D-printing, Amniotic membrane, Bone, Bone morphogenetic protein, Masquelet induced membrane technique, Tissue engineering
Référence
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2021 May;124:112032