Date post: | 26-Mar-2023 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | khangminh22 |
View: | 0 times |
Download: | 0 times |
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A XENOGRAFT-BASED SCAFFOLD FOR TENDON AND LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION
BY
THORSTEN MARKUS SEYLER
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
MOLECULAR MEDICINE AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE
May 2014
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Approved By
George J. Christ, Ph.D. (Committee Chair)
Thomas L. Smith, Ph.D. (Doctoral Thesis Advisor)
Gary G. Poehling, M.D.
Mark E. Van Dyle, Ph.D.
Michael F. Callahan, Ph.D.
ii
DEDICATION
There are a number of people without whom this thesis might not have been written, and
to whom I am greatly indebted. I dedicate this thesis to my parents Evelyn and Heinz
Werner. I hope that this achievement will complete their dream when they chose to give
me the best education they could and their unequivocal support throughout the years. I also
dedicate this thesis to my loving and supportive wife Tasha, who provided endless words
of encouragement and supported me each step of the way. She was always there cheering
me up and stood by me through the good times and bad times. Thank you for providing me
strength, courage and support that urge me to strive to achieve my goals in life.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisors Thomas L. Smith,
Ph.D., Mark E. Van Dyke, Ph.D., Gary G. Poehling, M.D. for their continuous support of
my research, for their patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and immense knowledge. Their
guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis. I could not have
imagined better advisors and mentors for my Ph.D. study.
Besides my advisors, I would like to thank Patrick W. Whitlock, M.D. Ph.D. for being a
friend and incredible resource on both an academic and a personal level, for which I am
extremely grateful. This thesis would not have been possible without his help, support, and
insightful comments. I would like to acknowledge the rest of my thesis committee: Gary
G. Poehling, M.D., Michael F. Callahan, Ph.D., and George J. Christ, Ph.D. for their
encouragement, insightful comments, and hard questions.
My sincere thanks also goes to Beth P. Smith, Ph.D., for her personal support and great
patience during my time in the orthopaedic research laboratories.
Last but not the least, I would like to thank my fellow residents and lab mates in the
Orthopaedic Surgery Department at Wake Forest: Sandeep Mannava, M.D., Ph.D.;
Johannes F. Plate, M.D. PhD.; Daniel N. Bracey, M.D.; and Peter J. Apel, M.D., Ph.D. for
their support and friendship, the stimulating discussions, the sleepless nights we were
working together, and for all the fun we have had in the last few years. Thank you!
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
Dedication....................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................iiiTable of Contents.................................................................................................................................ivList of Figures and Tables.................................................................................................................viList of Abbreviations.........................................................................................................................viiThesis Abstract......................................................................................................................................x
Chapter 1......................................................................................................................................1Introduction...........................................................................................................................................1
Rationale for Decellularization in Tendon and Ligament Tissue Engineering............................2Description of Decellularization Modalities...........................................................................................7References.......................................................................................................................................................11Figures and Tables........................................................................................................................................18
Chapter 2....................................................................................................................................19A Tissue-engineered Approach to Tendon and Ligament Reconstruction: Current Trends...................................................................................................................................................19
Abstract............................................................................................................................................................21Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................22Clinical Significance of Tissue Engineered Solutions......................................................................24Natural Alternative Graft Choices for Tendon and Ligament Reconstruction: Xenografts..29Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................35References.......................................................................................................................................................37Figures and Tables........................................................................................................................................48
Chapter 3....................................................................................................................................51A Novel Process for Optimizing Musculoskeletal Allograft Tissue: Improving Safety, Ultra-Structural Properties and Cell Infiltration......................................................................51
Abstract............................................................................................................................................................53Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................55Materials & Methods...................................................................................................................................57Results..............................................................................................................................................................64Discussion.......................................................................................................................................................68References.......................................................................................................................................................72Figures and Tables........................................................................................................................................78
Chapter 4....................................................................................................................................87The Development of a Xenograft-derived Scaffold for Tendon and Ligament Reconstruction....................................................................................................................................87
Abstract............................................................................................................................................................89Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................91Material & Methods.....................................................................................................................................94Results...........................................................................................................................................................105Discussion....................................................................................................................................................111Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................115References....................................................................................................................................................116Figures and Tables.....................................................................................................................................124
v
Chapter 5.................................................................................................................................134The Effect of Cyclic Strain on the Tensile Properties of a Naturally-Derived, Decellularized Tendon Scaffold Seeded with Allogeneic Tenocytes and Associated mRNA Expression.........................................................................................................................................134
Abstract.........................................................................................................................................................136Introduction..................................................................................................................................................137Material & Methods..................................................................................................................................140Discussion....................................................................................................................................................148Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................154Competing interests...................................................................................................................................155Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................156References....................................................................................................................................................157Figures and Tables.....................................................................................................................................162
Chapter 6.................................................................................................................................166Summary, Clinical Relevance, & Future Directions...............................................................166
Summary of Doctoral Thesis..................................................................................................................167Clinical Relevance to Orthopaedic Surgery.......................................................................................169Future Direction for Research................................................................................................................171References....................................................................................................................................................172
Curriculum Vitae..................................................................................................................182Post Graduate Education & Training...................................................................................................183Medical Licensures....................................................................................................................................184Professional Society Memberships.......................................................................................................185Honors & Awards......................................................................................................................................186Editorial Activities.....................................................................................................................................187Committees..................................................................................................................................................188Peer-reviewed Publications.....................................................................................................................189Book Chapters.............................................................................................................................................197Meeting Presentations...............................................................................................................................198Electronic Media........................................................................................................................................210Research Grants..........................................................................................................................................211
Permissions to reprint published articles in doctoral thesis........................................212
vi
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Chapter 1, Figures and Tables Chapter 1, Figure 1 Page 18 Chapter 2, Figures and Tables Chapter 2, Figure 1 Page 48 Chapter 2, Table 1 Page 49 Chapter 2, Table 2 Page 50 Chapter 3, Figures and Tables Chapter 3, Figure 1 Page 78 Chapter 3, Figure 2 Page 79 Chapter 3, Figure 3 Page 80 Chapter 3, Figure 4 Page 81 Chapter 3, Figure 5 Page 82 Chapter 3, Figure 6 Page 83 Chapter 3, Table 1 Page 84 Chapter 3, Table 2 Page 85 Chapter 3, Table 3 Page 86 Chapter 4, Figures and Tables Chapter 4, Figure 1 Page 124 Chapter 4, Figure 2 Page 125 Chapter 4, Figure 3 Page 126 Chapter 4, Figure 4 Page 127 Chapter 4, Figure 5 Page 128 Chapter 4, Figure 6 Page 129 Chapter 4, Figure 7 Page 130 Chapter 4, Figure 8 Page 131 Chapter 4, Table 1 Page 132 Chapter 4, Table 2 Page 133 Chapter 5, Figures and Tables Chapter 5, Figure 1 Page 163 Chapter 5, Figure 2 Page 164 Chapter 5, Table 1 Page 165
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AANA Arthroscopy Association of North America
AAOS American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
AATB American Association of Tissue Banks
ACL Anterior cruciate ligament
Ad Adenovirus
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
α-gal Galα1-3Galβ1-4GlcNAc-R
BioRx Bioreactor
CHAPS 3-[(3-cholamidopropyl)dimethylammonio]-1-
propanesulfonate
DAPI 4', 6-diamidino-2-phenylindole
DMEM Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid
DPBS Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline
E Elastic modulus, Young’s modulus
EDTA Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
EGTA Ethyleneglycoltetraacetic acid
ELISA Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
FBS Fetal bovine serum
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FDP Flexor digitorum profundus
GAG Glycosaminoglycan
viii
GAPDH Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase
H&E Hematoxylin and eosin
hFDATA Freeze-dried human Achilles tendon allograft
IL-6 Interleukin 6
kN Kilonewtons
MMP Matrix metalloproteinase
MPa Megapascal
Mrad Milliradian
MTS (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-
carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-
tetrazolium)
NIH National Institute of Health
NR Neutral red
OREF Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation
PAA Peracetic acid
PFU Plaque Forming Units
RNA Ribonucleic acid
RTPCR Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction
SAL Sterility assurance level
SEM Scanning electron microscopy
SEM Standard error of the mean
SDS Sodium dodecyl sulfate
SV5 Simian virus 5
ix
TBP Tri-n-butyl phosphate
TNF-α Tumor necrosis factor-α
UTL Ultimate tensile load
UTS Ultimate tensile stress
VSV Vesicular Stomatitis virus
WHO World Health Organization
x
THESIS ABSTRACT
Tendon and ligament injuries place a significant burden on the United States economy.
Tissue-engineering is an emerging field that may potentially contribute to the development
of novel therapeutic strategies in areas of ligament and tendon reconstruction surgery.
Currently there is a limited supply of donor tendons available for surgical reconstruction.
The goal of tissue engineering is to develop scaffolds to replace damaged and injured
tissues. The major components of tissue engineering approaches include cells,
biomaterials, and an appropriate environment for promoting tissue remodeling. The work
in this thesis is based on the development of a novel decellularization and oxidation
protocol. The data presented characterize both allogenic and xenogenic scaffolds using
histological, mechanical and structural analyses. Scaffolds prepared using this protocol
demonstrate decreased immunogenic potential, are biocompatible in vitro and in vivo,
retain tensile properties compared to native source tissue, possess a modified ultrastructure,
have a decreased risk of disease transmission through viral load elimination, and remodel
and preserve functionality in vivo. Because these decellularized scaffolds provide the
necessary microstructure and extracellular cues for cell attachment, they were successfully
seeded and cultivated in a bioreactor. Cyclic preconditioning restored tensile properties
compared to fresh-frozen tendons. In summary, the application of this novel
decellularization and oxidation process is broadly applicable to create scaffolds from
several sources for tendon and ligament reconstruction. Bioreactor conditioning facilitates
tissue remodeling and improves the performance of scaffolds, making this construct a
potential design to reconstruct tendons and ligaments with sufficient load-bearing capacity
for rapid return of functionality.
2
RATIONALE FOR DECELLULARIZATION IN TENDON AND LIGAMENT
TISSUE ENGINEERING
Tendon and ligament injuries place a significant burden on the United States
economy, accounting for nearly 32 million orthopaedic musculoskeletal injuries annually.1
Some of these ligamentous and tendinous injuries represent a treatment challenge and
reproducible satisfactory post-surgical results are difficult to achieve. Orthopaedic
surgeons have successfully reconstructed tendons and ligaments utilizing autografts and
allografts; however, re-rupture poses a significant complication that limits the surgeon’s
operative choices. Tissue-engineering is an emerging field that may contribute to the
development of novel therapeutic strategies in ligament and tendon reconstruction
surgery.2-4
The major objective of tissue engineering is to reconstruct tissues in order to replace
injured or damaged tissues without compromising function. An exciting concept is the
decellularization of allogenic or xenogenic tissues that can be used for reconstructive
surgery.5-7 The ultimate goal of tissue decellularization is to remove cellular and antigenic
material without affecting the composition of the extracellular matrix (ECM), preserve
biological activity, and maintain structural integrity. This produces an ideal
biological scaffold since it contains all the components of the tissue from which it
was derived except for the living cells. Preservation of the ECM has demonstrated site-
specific cell differentiation and remodeling by providing a three-dimensional
ultrastructure.8 The nature of the tissue source ultimately determines the physical
microstructure and promotes site-specific differentiation of progenitor cells.9
3
The insufficient vascularization of ligaments (i.e. anterior cruciate ligament)
prevents them from healing completely after an extreme tear or rupture, creating a need for
operative reconstruction. Using the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) as an example, four
options have been utilized for the repair or replacement: (1) autografts, (2) allografts, (3)
xenografts, and (4) synthetic grafts. Autogenous tissue avoids the perceived risk of disease
transmission and demonstrates superior rates of graft incorporation and remodeling when
compared to allografts.10 Traditionally, autogenous bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts have
been considered the “gold standard” and combine several advantages such as greater
fixation strength, superior mechanical properties, and good long-term results when
compared to other grafting techniques.11, 12 The graft consists of the central one third of the
patellar tendon and includes a bone plug proximally from the patella and distally from the
tibia. Bone-patellar tendon-bone offers the strongest healing potential because it relies
mainly on bone-to-bone healing between the graft bone plug and the tunnel.13
Disadvantages associated with autogenous bone–patellar tendon–bone grafts including
quadriceps weakness, arthrofibrosis, patellofemoral pain, patellar tendinitis or rupture,
patellar fracture, and patella infera syndrome.14 Due to improvements in graft fixation
techniques, the preparation of multiple bundle grafts, and reduced donor site morbidity,
there has been an increase in popularity of the use of hamstring tendons as the autograft for
ACL reconstruction. The hamstring graft has evolved from using a single strand of either
semitendinosis or gracilis tendon to a quadruple loop combination of semitendinosis and
gracilis tendons. Although this graft choice has become more popular, hamstring tendon
autografts rely on soft tissue-to-bone healing, which occurs at a slower rate than bone-to-
4
bone healing.15 Disadvantages associated with hamstring grafts include potential harvest
pain and flexion torque loss.
The use of allogenic tissue is another common alternative for reconstructing the
ACL. Potential advantages of allografts include decreased donor site morbidity, immediate
availability of various graft sizes (off-the-shelf), less postoperative pain, better
postoperative function, and lower incidence of postoperative arthrofibrosis. The greatest
disadvantage of allografts is the potential risk of disease transmission. Contamination of
allografts can occur when the tissue is still confined to the donor’s corpus and during or
after tissue removal because of improper tissue processing procedures. In the past, the two
methods employed to avoid disease transmission were graft sterilization using ethylene
oxide treatment or gamma irradiation. Ethylene oxide is no longer used because of
associated synovitis and intra-articular graft destruction. Gamma irradiation is thought to
create free radicals and modify nucleic acids leading to virus and bacterial destruction. It
has also been associated with disruption of the structural integrity of the graft.16 Therefore,
both sterilization techniques are currently not used on allografts for ACL reconstruction.
Initial concerns of graft weakness using the ethylene oxide or high dose gamma irradiation
sterilization process have been addressed by employing multimodal process that involves
sterile harvesting of tissue from the donor, rigorous donor screening/testing, antibiotic
soaking, chemical sterilization processes, low dose irradiation (1.2-1.8 Mrad), and a final
preservation technique such as lyophilization or freezing.12, 17, 18 Despite these advances in
graft sterilization, one of the major drawbacks of using allografts is slow incorporation into
host bone and graft remodeling, which may lead to reduced graft strength and early
failure.15
5
In the 1980s, bovine xenografts cross-linked with glutaraldehyde were used with
moderate success. Because follow-up studies could not reproduce these promising early
findings, bovine xenografts failed to obtain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval
owing to high failure rates and complications associated with their use. The mechanism of
failure for the bovine-based devices included poor biocompatibility and graft rejection
attributed to excess glutaraldehyde, as well as improper biomechanical properties pre-
implantation, lack of host integration, and recurrent effusions.19, 20
The potential advantages of synthetic ligaments are multifold. They would
eliminate the problems of graft harvest, would be readily available for use, and would offer
no risk of disease transmission. However, a problem with synthetic grafts is identifying the
ideal combination of materials that would provide initial support for the knee while
allowing gradual ingrowth and graft remodeling. A spectrum of devices has been created
including Dacron, Kevlar, and carbon fiber grafts. The initial clinical success using non-
degradable synthetic scaffolds could not be maintained in long term studies because these
grafts frequently failed due to inappropriate mechanical properties, material fatigue
profiles, and material shedding.21-24 Adverse events associated with synthetic grafts are
based on extensive wear as well as foreign-body responses.19 Abraded synthetic particles
were detected in the joint space, lymph nodes, and other tissues leading to a chronic
inflammatory response.25
Despite the clinical success using autogenous and allogenous grafts, there is no
consensus among orthopaedic surgeons on the “perfect graft” choice.11, 14, 26 Surgeons
continue to seek alternative reconstruction techniques in an attempt to reduce
complications and improve long-term outcomes. Since naturally-derived scaffolds in tissue
6
engineering are of allogenic or xenogenic origin, the removal of cellular material and
antigens is critical. Most of the decellularization protocols are based on a combination of
physical, chemical, and enzymatic modalities. In order to develop an effective protocol for
decellularization, it is of utmost importance to account for many physical factors of the
tissue of interest including thickness, cellularity, density, and lipid content. Thicker tissues
may require more extensive decellularization modalities and longer exposure times. Highly
cellular tissues may require additional mechanical modalities and exposure to a
combination of detergents followed by rinsing. Fatty tissues may require the addition of
lipid solvents. It is clear that any decellularization modality intended to remove cellular
material can negatively impact ECM composition and the mechanical integrity of the
tissue. Therefore, it is important to find a balance between maximizing removal of cellular
material and antigens while minimizing adverse effects on structural integrity. The protocol
for decellularization and oxidation used in this thesis is a combination of physical,
chemical, and enzymatic modalities (Figure 1) that have been optimized for ligament and
tendon decellularization. As an introduction to decellularization processes, the following
sections will provide a brief overview of the most commonly used decellularization
modalities and the effects of these modalities upon biologic scaffold material.
7
DESCRIPTION OF DECELLULARIZATION MODALITIES
Physical Modalities
The most commonly used physical modalities in decellularization protocols include
freezing, force and direct pressure, sonication, and agitation. Freezing is an effective
method of cell lysis that is frequently used for decellularization of tendinous and
ligamentous tissue.27 However, the freezing process must be followed by a process that can
remove cellular material. Although freezing can lead to minor disruptions in the ECM, the
impact on mechanical properties is minimal.28
Mechanical force and hydrostatic pressure can be used to lyse and remove cells
in tissues with less densely organized ECM. Both methods are effective for
decellularization of tissues that are characterized by natural planes. However, this method
can lead to damage to the structural integrity of the tissue.
Sonication is a less frequently used modality to disrupt cell membranes and
decellularize tissues.29 It is often used as an adjunct to other modalities; little is known
about optimal magnitude, frequency, and duration of application.30
Mechanical agitation is frequently used in decellularization protocols. While
agitation itself can cause cell lysis, the main purpose of integrating mechanical agitation
into decellularization protocols is to facilitate exposure of the tissue to a chemical
decellularization agent in order to remove cellular debris.31, 32 The duration and intensity
of agitation varies based on the thickness and density of the tissue of interest.
Chemical Modalities
Multiple chemical agents can be used to decellularize tissues. Both hypertonic and
hypotonic solutions can be utilized to cause cell lysis. Treatment with hypertonic solutions
8
typically dissociates DNA from proteins33, whereas exposure to hypotonic solutions
typically causes cell lysis by an osmotic effect.34 Utilization of these agents does not impact
tissue microarchitecture but also does not remove cellular debris and, therefore, requires
combination with additional enzymatic or chemical treatments.
Acid and base treatments can disrupt cell membranes and intracellular organelles,
effectively removing nucleic acids.5 Frequently used agents are hydrochloric acid, sulfuric
acid, and ammonium hydroxide. While most of these agents are detrimental to the ECM
and need to be used with caution35, peracetic acid has proven to preserve ECM proteins
and mechanical strength.36, 37
Detergents are some of the most commonly used agents in decellularization
protocols.5, 7 They are typically divided into ionic, non-ionic, and twitterionic detergents.
Their mechanism of action is dissociation of proteins in the extracellular matrix and
removal of DNA. The effectiveness of a detergent depends on the tissue type and exposure
time.38 Non-ionic detergents such as triton X-100 are presumed to be milder and disrupt
lipid-lipid and lipid-protein bonds. They are effective in removing nuclear material and
cause a significant decrease in glycosaminoglycans (GAG) content.39 However, Triton X-
100 has also been shown to preserve collagen content while decreasing tensile strength of
individual collagen fibers with prolonged incubation. Ionic detergents such as sodium
dodecyl sulfate (SDS) or Triton X-200 are considered to be effective for removal of cellular
material. However, these agents tend to denature proteins by disrupting protein to protein
bonds; they have been associated with cytotoxicity.40 Zwitterionic agents such as 3-[(3-
cholamidopropyl)dimethylammonio]-1-propanesulfonate (CHAPS) have properties of
9
both non-ionic and anionic detergents, exhibiting a greater tendency to denature proteins
than non-ionic agents but resulting in less disruption to the ultrastructure than ionic agents.5
Organic solvents including Tri-n-butylphosphine (TBP) and alcohols inactivate
pyrogens, remove cells from dense tissues, and have minimal effects on the mechanical
properties of tissues.7 Alcohols can also be used to remove lipids from tissue and often are
used in initial steps of decellularization. TBP has shown to inactivate viruses which can
aid in reducing the risk for disease transmission in allogenic and xenogenic tissues.41
Chelating agents such as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and
ethyleneglycoltetraacetic acid (EGTA) are typically used with enzymatic modalities due to
their ineffectiveness when used alone.5-7 These agents bind metallic ions, disrupting cell
attachment to the ECM. EDTA is typically used in conjunction with trypsin.
Enzymatic Modalities
Exposure to enzymatic agents should be limited due to their adverse effects on the
ECM. The most commonly used enzymes in decellularization processes are trypsin,
nucleases, collagenase, lipase, dispase, and α-glactosidase.5 Nucleases cleave the
phosphodiester bonds between the nucleotide subunits of nucleic acids facilitating removal
of nucleotides.42 The use of collagenase is only advised when preservation of the
ultrastructure is not critically important. Trypsin is the most commonly used enzymatic
agent, cleaving peptide chains mainly at the carboxyl end of lysine or arginine, except when
either is followed by proline. Prolonged exposure to trypsin can cause disruption of the
ECM because of removal of laminin, fibronectin, and GAGs. While prolonged exposure to
trypsin is associated with a decrease in tensile strength, the overall content of collagen was
not reduced.43 Lipase is used in the decellularization of tissue with high lipid content;
10
however, its efficacy as sole lipid removing agent is in question.44 In the decellularization
of xenogenic tissues, α-glactosidase can be used to remove the α-Gal epitope and reduce
the immunogenic potential of the xenogenic tissue.45
11
REFERENCES
1. Butler DL, Juncosa-Melvin N, Boivin GP, Galloway MT, Shearn JT, Gooch C, et
al. Functional tissue engineering for tendon repair: A multidisciplinary strategy using
mesenchymal stem cells, bioscaffolds, and mechanical stimulation. Journal of Orthopaedic
Research. 2008;26(1):1-9.
2. Turner NJ, Badylak SF. Biologic scaffolds for musculotendinous tissue repair.
European cells & materials. 2013;25:130-43. Epub 2013/01/19.
3. Hogan MV, Bagayoko N, James R, Starnes T, Katz A, Chhabra AB. Tissue
engineering solutions for tendon repair. The Journal of the American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2011 Mar;19(3):134-42. Epub 2011/03/04.
4. Woo SL, Hildebrand K, Watanabe N, Fenwick JA, Papageorgiou CD, Wang JH.
Tissue engineering of ligament and tendon healing. Clinical orthopaedics and related
research. 1999 Oct(367 Suppl):S312-23. Epub 1999/11/05.
5. Crapo PM, Gilbert TW, Badylak SF. An overview of tissue and whole organ
decellularization processes. Biomaterials. 2011 Apr;32(12):3233-43. Epub 2011/02/08.
6. Gilbert TW. Strategies for tissue and organ decellularization. Journal of cellular
biochemistry. 2012 Jul;113(7):2217-22. Epub 2012/03/15.
7. Gilbert TW, Sellaro TL, Badylak SF. Decellularization of tissues and organs.
Biomaterials. 2006 Jul;27(19):3675-83. Epub 2006/03/08.
8. Nelson CM, Tien J. Microstructured extracellular matrices in tissue engineering
and development. Current opinion in biotechnology. 2006 Oct;17(5):518-23. Epub
2006/09/15.
12
9. Daly KA, Liu S, Agrawal V, Brown BN, Johnson SA, Medberry CJ, et al. Damage
associated molecular patterns within xenogeneic biologic scaffolds and their effects on host
remodeling. Biomaterials. 2012 Jan;33(1):91-101. Epub 2011/10/05.
10. Jackson DW, Grood ES, Goldstein JD, Rosen MA, Kurzweil PR, Cummings JF, et
al. A comparison of patellar tendon autograft and allograft used for anterior cruciate
ligament reconstruction in the goat model. Am J Sports Med. 1993 Mar-Apr;21(2):176-85.
11. Chang SK, Egami DK, Shaieb MD, Kan DM, Richardson AB. Anterior cruciate
ligament reconstruction: allograft versus autograft. Arthroscopy : the journal of
arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of
North America and the International Arthroscopy Association. 2003 May-Jun;19(5):453-
62. Epub 2003/05/02.
12. Poehling GG, Curl WW, Lee CA, Ginn TA, Rushing JT, Naughton MJ, et al.
Analysis of outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament repair with 5-year follow-up: allograft
versus autograft. Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official
publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International
Arthroscopy Association. 2005 Jul;21(7):774-85. Epub 2005/07/14.
13. Papageorgiou CD, Ma CB, Abramowitch SD, Clineff TD, Woo SL. A
multidisciplinary study of the healing of an intraarticular anterior cruciate ligament graft
in a goat model. Am J Sports Med. 2001 Sep-Oct;29(5):620-6.
14. Sherman OH, Banffy MB. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: which graft
is best? Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of
the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy
Association. 2004 Nov;20(9):974-80. Epub 2004/11/05.
13
15. Jackson DW, Corsetti J, Simon TM. Biologic incorporation of allograft anterior
cruciate ligament replacements. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 1996
Mar(324):126-33. Epub 1996/03/01.
16. Vangsness CT, Jr., Garcia IA, Mills CR, Kainer MA, Roberts MR, Moore TM.
Allograft transplantation in the knee: tissue regulation, procurement, processing, and
sterilization. Am J Sports Med. 2003 May-Jun;31(3):474-81. Epub 2003/05/17.
17. Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation MTF. MTF Allograft Tissue Instructions
for Use. 2006.
18. Jones DB, Huddleston PM, Zobitz ME, Stuart MJ. Mechanical properties of
patellar tendon allografts subjected to chemical sterilization. Arthroscopy : the journal of
arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of
North America and the International Arthroscopy Association. 2007 Apr;23(4):400-4.
Epub 2007/04/10.
19. Olson EJ, Kang JD, Fu FH, Georgescu HI, Mason GC, Evans CH. The biochemical
and histological effects of artificial ligament wear particles: in vitro and in vivo studies.
Am J Sports Med. 1988 Nov-Dec;16(6):558-70. Epub 1988/11/01.
20. Vunjak-Novakovic G, Altman G, Horan R, Kaplan DL. Tissue engineering of
ligaments. Annual review of biomedical engineering. 2004;6:131-56. Epub 2004/07/17.
21. Bolton CW, Bruchman WC. The GORE-TEX expanded polytetrafluoroethylene
prosthetic ligament. An in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Clinical orthopaedics and related
research. 1985 Jun(196):202-13. Epub 1985/06/01.
22. Lukianov AV, Richmond JC, Barrett GR, Gillquist J. A multicenter study on the
results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a Dacron ligament prosthesis in
14
"salvage" cases. Am J Sports Med. 1989 May-Jun;17(3):380-5; discussion 5-6. Epub
1989/05/01.
23. Schindhelm K, Rogers GJ, Milthorpe BK, Hall PJ, Howlett CR, Sekel R, et al.
Autograft and Leeds-Keio reconstructions of the ovine anterior cruciate ligament. Clinical
orthopaedics and related research. 1991 Jun(267):278-93. Epub 1991/06/01.
24. Weiss AB, Blazina ME, Goldstein AR, Alexander H. Ligament replacement with
an absorbable copolymer carbon fiber scaffold--early clinical experience. Clinical
orthopaedics and related research. 1985 Jun(196):77-85. Epub 1985/06/01.
25. Margevicius KJ, Claes LE, Durselen L, Hanselmann K. Identification and
distribution of synthetic ligament wear particles in sheep. J Biomed Mater Res. 1996
Jul;31(3):319-28. Epub 1996/07/01.
26. Herrington L, Wrapson C, Matthews M, Matthews H. Anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction, hamstring versus bone-patella tendon-bone grafts: a systematic literature
review of outcome from surgery. The Knee. 2005 Jan;12(1):41-50. Epub 2005/01/25.
27. Jackson DW, Grood ES, Cohn BT, Arnoczky SP, Simon TM, Cummings JF. The
effects of in situ freezing on the anterior cruciate ligament. An experimental study in goats.
The Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume. 1991 Feb;73(2):201-13. Epub
1991/02/01.
28. Jackson DW, Grood ES, Wilcox P, Butler DL, Simon TM, Holden JP. The effects
of processing techniques on the mechanical properties of bone-anterior cruciate ligament-
bone allografts. An experimental study in goats. Am J Sports Med. 1988 Mar-
Apr;16(2):101-5. Epub 1988/03/01.
15
29. Azhim A, Yamagami K, Muramatsu K, Morimoto Y, Tanaka M. The use of
sonication treatment to completely decellularize blood arteries: a pilot study. Conference
proceedings : Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and
Biology Society IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society Conference.
2011;2011:2468-71. Epub 2012/01/19.
30. Hung SH, Su CH, Lee FP, Tseng H. Larynx decellularization: combining freeze-
drying and sonication as an effective method. Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice
Foundation. 2013 May;27(3):289-94. Epub 2013/03/16.
31. Gillies AR, Smith LR, Lieber RL, Varghese S. Method for decellularizing skeletal
muscle without detergents or proteolytic enzymes. Tissue engineering Part C, Methods.
2011 Apr;17(4):383-9. Epub 2010/10/27.
32. Woods T, Gratzer PF. Effectiveness of three extraction techniques in the
development of a decellularized bone-anterior cruciate ligament-bone graft. Biomaterials.
2005 Dec;26(35):7339-49. Epub 2005/07/19.
33. Cox B, Emili A. Tissue subcellular fractionation and protein extraction for use in
mass-spectrometry-based proteomics. Nature protocols. 2006;1(4):1872-8. Epub
2007/05/10.
34. Xu CC, Chan RW, Tirunagari N. A biodegradable, acellular xenogeneic scaffold
for regeneration of the vocal fold lamina propria. Tissue engineering. 2007 Mar;13(3):551-
66. Epub 2007/05/24.
35. Dong X, Wei X, Yi W, Gu C, Kang X, Liu Y, et al. RGD-modified acellular bovine
pericardium as a bioprosthetic scaffold for tissue engineering. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2009
Nov;20(11):2327-36. Epub 2009/06/10.
16
36. Hodde J, Janis A, Hiles M. Effects of sterilization on an extracellular matrix
scaffold: part II. Bioactivity and matrix interaction. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007
Apr;18(4):545-50. Epub 2007/06/05.
37. Hodde JP, Record RD, Tullius RS, Badylak SF. Retention of endothelial cell
adherence to porcine-derived extracellular matrix after disinfection and sterilization.
Tissue engineering. 2002 Apr;8(2):225-34. Epub 2002/05/29.
38. Chen RN, Ho HO, Tsai YT, Sheu MT. Process development of an acellular dermal
matrix (ADM) for biomedical applications. Biomaterials. 2004 Jun;25(13):2679-86. Epub
2004/01/31.
39. Meyer SR, Chiu B, Churchill TA, Zhu L, Lakey JR, Ross DB. Comparison of aortic
valve allograft decellularization techniques in the rat. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2006
Nov;79(2):254-62. Epub 2006/07/04.
40. Seddon AM, Curnow P, Booth PJ. Membrane proteins, lipids and detergents: not
just a soap opera. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2004 Nov 3;1666(1-2):105-17. Epub 2004/11/03.
41. Horowitz B, Prince AM, Hamman J, Watklevicz C. Viral safety of
solvent/detergent-treated blood products. Blood coagulation & fibrinolysis : an
international journal in haemostasis and thrombosis. 1994 Dec;5 Suppl 3:S21-8; discussion
S9-S30. Epub 1994/12/01.
42. Rieder E, Kasimir MT, Silberhumer G, Seebacher G, Wolner E, Simon P, et al.
Decellularization protocols of porcine heart valves differ importantly in efficiency of cell
removal and susceptibility of the matrix to recellularization with human vascular cells. The
Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2004 Feb;127(2):399-405. Epub
2004/02/06.
17
43. Schenke-Layland K, Vasilevski O, Opitz F, Konig K, Riemann I, Halbhuber KJ, et
al. Impact of decellularization of xenogeneic tissue on extracellular matrix integrity for
tissue engineering of heart valves. Journal of structural biology. 2003 Sep;143(3):201-8.
Epub 2003/10/24.
44. Brown BN, Freund JM, Han L, Rubin JP, Reing JE, Jeffries EM, et al. Comparison
of three methods for the derivation of a biologic scaffold composed of adipose tissue
extracellular matrix. Tissue engineering Part C, Methods. 2011 Apr;17(4):411-21. Epub
2010/11/04.
45. Stone KR, Ayala G, Goldstein J, Hurst R, Walgenbach A, Galili U. Porcine
cartilage transplants in the cynomolgus monkey. III. Transplantation of alpha-
galactosidase-treated porcine cartilage. Transplantation. 1998 Jun 27;65(12):1577-83.
Epub 1998/07/17.
18
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Detailed outline of decellularization protocol used for all experiments.
19
CHAPTER 2
A TISSUE-ENGINEERED APPROACH TO TENDON AND LIGAMENT
RECONSTRUCTION: CURRENT TRENDS
Thorsten M. Seyler, M.D.1, 2; Daniel N. Bracey, M.D.1, 2; Sandeep Mannava, M.D.,
Ph.D.1,3; Gary G. Poehling, M.D.1; Patrick W. Whitlock, M.D., Ph.D.1,4,5
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine,
Winston Salem, North Carolina
2Molecular Medicine and Translational Science Graduate Program, Wake Forest
University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, Winston Salem, North Carolina
3Neuroscience Graduate Program, Wake Forest University Graduate School of Arts &
Sciences, Winston Salem, North Carolina
4 Maurice E. Müller European Traveling Fellow in Hip Reconstruction, Zurich,
Switzerland
5Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles,
California
20
The following manuscript was accepted for publication in Sports Injuries: Prevention,
Diagnosis, Treatment and Rehabilitation edited by Mahmut Nedim Doral and Jon Karlsson
in March, 2014. This chapter is reprinted with permission. Stylistic variations are due to
the requirements of the journal Thorsten M. Seyler made substantial contributions to the
conception of the work and performed the literature research. HE is responsible for drafting
the work and revising it critically for important intellectual content including final approval
of the version to be published. He is accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that
questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately
investigated and resolved. He also served as corresponding author.
21
ABSTRACT
Current graft choices for tendon and ligament reconstruction include autograft and
allografts, with more than 900,000 allografts used for reconstructions annually in the
United States. Given the limitations of autografts and allografts, both synthetic and
naturally-derived tissue-engineered scaffolds have been developed. Despite its early
success, synthetic grafts have been associated with a high incidence of chronic foreign
body inflammation, debris-induced synovitis, mechanical limitations, and graft failure.
Therefore, in recent years the focus has shifted to the use of naturally-derived scaffolds and
an evolving discipline called "functional tissue engineering" which uses a combination of
stem cells, biocompatible scaffolds, and mechanical stimulation to produce tissue
engineered constructs suitable to replace or repair load-bearing structures such as tendons
and ligaments.
22
INTRODUCTION
Tendon and ligament injuries place a large burden on the United States economy,
accounting for nearly 32 million orthopaedic musculoskeletal injuries annually 1. Tissue-
engineering, specifically, the production of an optimized scaffold for soft tissue
augmentation, reconstruction or regeneration may offer significant advantages over
traditional allografts and autografts. Traditional allograft tissue is limited in supply, poses
concerns surrounding disease transmission and inflammatory reactions to donor cell
material as well as possible decreases in the tensile properties of grafts that undergo
chemical sterilization or irradiation 2. Autograft tissue is also limited in supply and
associated with significant donor site morbidity (pain, muscle atrophy, tendonitis), as well
as increased procedural cost and delayed return to activity 3.
Because of the limitations associated with both autograft and allograft tissues, interest has
developed in engineering a replacement with biologic and mechanical properties similar to
that of the native tissue. This interest is reflected by the more than ten-fold increase in the
number of articles published over the last decade addressing tendon and ligament tissue
engineering (Figure 1). A tissue-engineered scaffold for use in tendon and ligament
reconstruction has the potential to reduce or prevent disease transmission from allografts
and diminish any potential immunologic foreign-body response associated with allograft
reconstruction. Considering the advantages of tissue engineered grafts, it is not surprising
that they are gaining popularity with surgeons. A recent survey of orthopaedic surgeons in
the United Kingdom showed that 86% of surgeons would consider using a tissue
engineered graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction 4.
23
Tissue engineering strategies vary by complexity of the target tissue. One example is the
interest in developing an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) substitute.5, 6 Although some of
the tissue engineered substitutes showed promising short-term results, most failed over
time.7-10 The challenges of engineering an ACL substitute are highlighted by the ligament’s
unique anatomy that is constituted by two bundles which exhibit different tensioning
patterns throughout the knee’s range of motion and also by matching the mechanical
properties of the ligament. Additional challenges include simulating the ligament’s in vivo
environment and the lack of adequate blood supply which limits healing potential. 11
Historically, most ACL substitutes have been constructed with synthetic materials that
oversimplify the ligament’s complex anatomy and structure. As a result, no ACL substitute
has replicated the superior results achieved with autograft reconstruction to date. 12, 13 In
contrast to the ACL, tissue engineering strategies to improve rotator cuff repair outcomes
rely on tissue augmentation rather than substitution.14 Most scaffolds developed to enhance
outcomes of rotator cuff surgery are derived from human or xenograft extracellular matrix
or dermis.14 Synthetic scaffolds for rotator cuff repair are rare when compared to scaffolds
used for ACL reconstruction. The biggest concern with natural derived scaffolds for rotator
cuff surgery is the in vivo host response. Reports from a prospective randomized trial using
xenogenic extracellular matrix scaffolds showed a 20 to 30% hypersensitivity reaction to
the scaffold material.15 The results using human dermal matrix for augmentation of large
rotator cuff tears showed promising results at two years with 85% of intact rotator cuff.16
The difference between the success rates of these scaffolds is likely due to the nature of the
scaffold material. Early xenogenic-derived scaffolds performed poorly because of
24
incomplete removal of cells and the presence of the xenoantigen galactose-α (1,3)-
galactose.14
The ideal scaffold for tendon and ligament reconstruction would be: (1) naturally derived
from either allogeneic or xenogeneic material amenable to host-cell mediated remodeling
in vivo; (2) devoid of cellular material to minimize inflammatory potential, disease
transmission, and host immune response; (3) cytocompatible; (4) of optimal micro-
architecture to promote efficient cell seeding, infiltration, and attachment of the recipient’s
own cells prior to or after implantation; and (5) distinguished by sufficient biomechanical
integrity to withstand rehabilitation until complete remodeling of the scaffold has occurred
17. Such a scaffold should serve as template for cell attachment, promote rapid remodeling,
possess increased strength, demonstrate improved healing, and permit early rehabilitation
and return to function after implantation. Tissue engineered scaffolds have the potential to
vastly improve the treatment of tendon and ligament injuries, especially for larger defects
associated with tumor, trauma, and congenital deficiencies where autograft or allograft
tissue may not be available in sufficient quantity for reconstruction.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF TISSUE ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
Different approaches and various materials have been employed throughout the years to
design tissue-engineered tendon and ligament scaffolds. Some scaffolds are designed to
strictly serve as augmentation devices that protect biological grafts from high loads in the
early postoperative period of graft weakness. 18 These devices are generally implanted
simultaneously with a biological graft (autograft or allograft) to share the mechanical load.
Other scaffolds are designed to replace the use of allograft and autograft tissues entirely,
25
such as in coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction for the treatment of grade V
acromioclavicular joint separations (semitendinosus) and reconstruction of chronic biceps
tendon ruptures (tendoachilles). The Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation estimates that
over 900,000 allografts are used every year in the United States and that 1.5 million
musculoskeletal allografts were used in 2007 alone 19, 20 lending evidence to how large a
market this is. Allograft distribution is regulated by the American Association of Tissue
Banks (AATB) which initiated an inspection/accreditation program in 1986 that accredited
98 American tissue banks by the year 2006. With AATB oversight and regulations, disease
transmission from allograft tissue has fortunately become a rare event. However, pathogen
and disease transmission produces devastating consequences for a patient and every
measure should be taken to prevent this 21. Tissue engineered grafts derived from non-
human sources can eliminate the risk of disease transmission and minimize the risk of
contamination when novel, aggressive sterilization techniques are used.
Tissue autografts represent the historic “gold standard” in orthopaedic literature because
of their excellent clinical outcomes and because they avoid the risk of disease transmission
associated with allografts since the tissue is harvested from the patient’s own body.
However, despite these advantages, patient safety remains a concern with autografts when
considering the morbidity imparted to patients by autograft harvest. Harvesting the
autograft is an additional, invasive surgical procedure that presents risks which should be
avoided in vulnerable patient populations, such as polytrauma or oncologic patients.
Additionally, autograft harvest prolongs surgical and recovery times which ultimately
inflates the cost and burden on our health care system. Tissue engineered grafts, which are
26
commonly offered as “off-the-shelf” products at the time of surgery can avoid these
additional surgical risks and expenditures.
A. Clinical Significance: Rotator Cuff Reconstruction
Tissue-engineering may contribute to the development of novel therapeutic strategies in
rotator cuff reconstruction. Tissue engineered constructs are primarily designed to augment
or gap bridge large retracted tendon defects, in order to improve the healing and remodeling
of a torn rotator cuff.14 At present, there is no single, optimal surgical treatment that
successfully restores pre-injury shoulder strength, range of motion, and function 22. Despite
considerable surgical advances, these surgeries are still associated with a high rate (20-
70%) of recurrent tearing 23-25. Poor outcomes are commonly associated with risk factors
that include large tear size 26, high degree of muscle atrophy 27, poor tendon quality, and
inappropriate postoperative rehabilitation protocols 28. Soft tissue augmentation of the torn
rotator cuff has been attempted with various biologic materials including porcine small
intestine submucosa, dermal grafts, and/or tissue engineered synthetic grafts (Table I).
Although the results have been variable, these methods have the potential to improve the
healing and remodeling of the injured tendon 15, 29, 30. Rotator cuff injuries may require an
increased amount of tension to repair the tendon back to the humeral head secondary to
muscle atrophy and retraction. The use of tissue engineered constructs can alleviate the
excessive tension required for the repair of some rotator cuff tendons and this may improve
surgical outcomes. 31-33 In summary, large and chronic rotator cuff tears pose a significant
clinical problem that is inadequately addressed by current orthopaedic interventions.
Tissue engineered constructs offer a promising alternative to current graft options by
27
delivering a graft with favorable mechanical properties to the site of injury, which aids in
the initial implantation of tendons and ligaments immediately after surgery, as well as graft
integration and healing in the months to years following surgery. Use of a tissue-engineered
construct eliminates the constraints on graft availability and offers the advantage of
reduced morbidity, quicker rehabilitation, and more rapid graft bio-incorporation. Thus,
use of tissue-engineered constructs in rotator cuff reconstruction surgery might allow for a
substantial improvement over present surgical treatments. Implanting a tissue-engineered
graft with favorable mechanical properties will allow for an expedited return to work and
recreational activities for patients who have undergone rotator cuff reconstruction surgery
B. Clinical Significance: Anterior Cruciate Ligament
The anterior cruciate ligament is one the most commonly injured ligaments of the knee,
accounting for 175,000 reconstructions each year at a cost of $2 billion dollars in the United
States alone 34. Once torn, insufficient vascularization of the injured ACL limits healing
which may lead to joint instability, subsequent chondral and meniscal injury, osteoarthritis,
and long-term disability. To prevent these sequelae, patients with complete ACL ruptures
traditionally elect for operative reconstruction of the ligament. The current "gold standard"
for the treatment of ACL injuries is the placement of an intraarticular autograft or allograft.
Current graft choices for ACL reconstruction include bone–patellar tendon–bone, fascia
lata, and hamstring autografts, as well as bone–patellar tendon–bone and Achilles tendon
allografts. Autogenous bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts combine several advantages such
as greater fixation strength afforded by stable bone to bone healing, superior mechanical
properties, and good long-term results when compared to other grafting techniques 35.
28
Moreover, autogenous tissue avoids the potential risk of disease transmission and immune
rejection associated with allografts. Disadvantages of autogenous bone–patellar tendon–
bone grafts include quadriceps weakness, arthrofibrosis, patellofemoral pain, patellar
tendinitis or rupture, patellar fracture, and patella infera syndrome 36. Recently, there has
been a surge of interest in the use of autogenous hamstring tendon grafts due to
improvements in graft fixation techniques and the preparation of multiple bundle grafts.
Although this graft choice has become more popular, hamstring tendon grafts rely on soft
tissue-to-bone healing, which occurs at a slower rate than bone-to-bone healing 2 seen with
bone plugged tendon autografts. Other disadvantages of hamstring grafts include harvest
site morbidities, such as pain and flexion torque loss.
Allograft tissue is also commonly used in ACL reconstruction. Potential advantages of
allografts include elimination of donor site morbidity, immediate availability of various
graft sizes (off-the-shelf), less postoperative pain, better postoperative function, and lower
incidence of postoperative arthrofibrosis. However, one of the major drawbacks of using
allografts is slow incorporation into host bone and delayed graft remodeling, which may
reduce graft strength and cause early failure 2. Outcomes with allograft transplantation also
depend on the method of sterilization used to prevent disease transmission and
contamination. In the past, the two methods of graft sterilization used were ethylene oxide
treatment or gamma irradiation. Ethylene oxide is no longer used because of associated
synovitis and intra-articular graft destruction. Gamma irradiation is thought to work by
creating free radicals that modify nucleic acids leading to virus and bacterial destruction.
The downside of gamma irradiation, high dose gamma irradiation in particular, is that it
has also been associated with disruption of the structural integrity of the graft 37. Therefore,
29
both sterilization techniques are currently not used on allografts for ACL reconstruction.
With the advent of the freeze-dried and cryopreserved sterilization process of allografts,
initial concerns of graft weakness using the ethylene oxide sterilization process have been
addressed by employing multimodal processes that involve sterile harvesting of tissue from
the donor, rigorous donor screening/testing, antibiotic soaking, low dose irradiation (1.2-
1.8 Mrad), with final preservation techniques such as lyophilization or freezing 35 and good
graft strength and stiffness have been demonstrated using allogenous bone-patellar tendon-
bone grafts.3 More recently, a low-temperature, chemical sterilization process has been
used to effectively remove endogenous donor material such as blood and lipids and
eliminate bacteria, bacterial spores, fungi, and viruses without compromising mechanical
strength.38 Despite these advances in graft sterilization, one of the major drawbacks of
using allografts is slow incorporation into host bone and graft remodeling, which may lead
to reduced graft strength and early failure.2, 3
Despite the successes with both autogenous and allogenous grafts choices, there is no
consensus among orthopaedic surgeons on the “perfect graft” choice, and surgeons
continue to seek alternative reconstruction techniques in order to reduce complications and
improve long-term outcomes 36. Therefore, potential tissue-engineered solutions to
improve ACL reconstruction are of interest to surgeons and represent another significant
clinical application for orthopaedic tissue engineering.
NATURAL ALTERNATIVE GRAFT CHOICES FOR TENDON AND LIGAMENT
RECONSTRUCTION: XENOGRAFTS
30
Xenografts, which are taken from non-human species, are an alternative to traditional grafts
that have been described in the orthopaedic literature. In the 1980s, bovine xenografts
cross-linked with glutaraldehyde were used with moderate success. However, follow-up
studies could not reproduce the promising findings seen with short-term follow-up and
bovine xenografts ultimately failed to obtain Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approval owing to high failure rates and complications associated with their use. The
mechanism of failure for the bovine-based devices included poor biocompatibility and graft
rejection attributed to excess glutaraldehyde, as well as improper biomechanical properties
pre-implantation, lack of host integration, and recurrent joint effusions 39. More recently, a
case series of 10 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction using processed porcine
bone-patellar tendon-bone xenografts was published that reported encouraging clinical
outcomes at 24 months and concluded that the porcine patellar tendon is an appropriate
graft for reconstructing a human ACL 40. The success of xenografts, however, is limited by
the presence of the alpha-galactosyl carbohydrate on xenografts which humans produce
natural antibodies against. The alpha-gal epitope is abundantly expressed on the cell
surfaces of xenografts derived from non-primate mammals and 1% of naturally circulating
IgG antibodies in all humans will bind the alpha-gal structure 41, 42. The interaction between
alpha-gal and its antibody has been implicated in the hyperacute rejection of transplanted
porcine organs and similarly would lead to immune rejection and ultimate failure of
transplanted musculoskeletal tissue grafts. Various treatment strategies, including alpha-
gal specific enzyme digestion have been unsuccessful at removing enough of the epitope
in order to prevent an immune response in both human and primate models 40, 43. To date,
31
alpha-gal remains an immunological barrier to the clinical application of xenograft
transplantation. Tissue Engineered Grafts: Scaffolds and Beyond
A successful tissue-engineered graft must possess mechanical properties similar to the
native tendon/ligament being replaced until both graft osteointegration and remodeling
have occurred. The “ligamentization” of a tissue-engineered graft is a complex process that
requires high porosity to encourage cell infiltration. After intra-articular implantation, as
with an ACL graft for example, the graft is populated with host cells derived from the
synovial fluid 44. Graft revascularization then occurs predominately from the infrapatellar
fat pad distally and from the posterior synovial tissues proximally 45. Finally, matrix
remodeling occurs, which increases tensile strength 2. Therefore, a successful tissue
engineered ACL graft must serve as a “scaffold” that can temporarily withstand the
mechanical demands placed on a ligament; while simultaneously promoting cell infiltration
to encourage site-specific remodeling that strengthens the graft and enhances
osteointegration in the femoral and tibial bone tunnels. Such tissue engineered scaffolds
can be derived from synthetic materials or natural biologic materials.
A. Synthetic Scaffolds
The use of synthetic ligaments for ACL reconstruction grafts gained popularity in the late
1980s under the false belief that they may possess superior structural properties to
withstand physiologic stresses and strains. 46 Advantages of synthetic grafts include the
elimination of autogenous tissue harvest, donor site morbidity, and risk of disease
transmission. However, synthetic grafts have been associated with a high incidence of
chronic foreign body inflammation, debris-induced synovitis, mechanical limitations, and
32
complete graft rupture 47, 48. The challenge with engineering successful synthetic grafts is
identifying the ideal combination of materials that would provide initial support for the
knee while allowing gradual ingrowth of host cells and graft remodeling. A spectrum of
devices has been created that includes Dacron, Kevlar, and carbon fiber grafts (Table II).
Others include polyethylene terephthalate (Leeds-Keio Ligament) which is a woven porous
tube, polypropylene (Ligament Augmentation Device) which is a diamond braided
cylindrical device and polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) which is fibers wound into a
looped braid 49-51. These synthetic ligaments are designed to encourage the ingrowth of
new host tissue to further strengthen and integrate the ligament. Unfortunately, initial
success of these non-degradable synthetic materials could not be maintained in long-term
studies because they frequently failed due to inappropriate mechanical properties, material
fatigue profiles, and material shedding 52-55. Adverse events associated with synthetic grafts
are based on extensive wear as well as foreign-body responses 47. Further investigation
showed that abraded synthetic particles were accumulating in the joint space, lymph nodes,
and regional lymphatic tissues leading to a chronic inflammatory response. 56 Additionally,
these particles also have direct cytotoxic and antimitotic effects on neighboring cells. 57
Biomechanical investigation has shown that synthetic scaffolds do not effectively transmit
physiologic strain to seeded cells, resulting in a loss of the mechanical stimuli which is
essential for stem cell differentiation and ultimately sub-optimal ligament morphology 58-
61. Attention has largely shifted away from synthetic graft substitutes in light of the
consistent evidence supporting superior outcomes with gold standard autograft procedures.
62 A number of the issues associated with synthetic ligaments can be avoided with the use
33
of naturally-derived scaffolds and as a result, they have garnered considerable attention in
the tissue engineering literature.
B. Naturally-Derived Scaffolds
Recently, the focus in tissue engineering has shifted to the use of scaffolds derived from
natural tissues. Naturally-derived scaffolds can be synthesized from biologic elements,
such as reconstituted bovine collagen, or they can be created by decellularization of whole
tendons or ligaments to preserve only the extracellular matrix and structural elements.
Naturally-derived scaffolds are appealing because, compared to synthetic scaffolds; they
more closely mimic the structural, mechanical and biologic properties of a native tissue
and, therefore, are more likely to promote host cell infiltration and remodeling. Less
aggressive decellularization protocols may preserve the native growth factors present in
donor a material, which makes these naturally derived scaffolds more suitable for
regenerative engineering than synthetic materials. Biologic materials are compatible with
host physiology and their degradation will not create the harmful byproducts formed by
degradation of synthetics. To date, decellularized tissues have been successfully used in a
variety of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications 63-65. The authors of
this chapter have previously reported on the development of a tendon scaffold derived from
xenograft tendon (chicken flexor digitorum profundus tendon) 17, 66 as well as a scaffold
derived from allograft tendon (human freeze-dried Achilles tendon)67, 68 using a novel
decellularization/oxidation protocol. Both resulting scaffolds showed convincing evidence
of decellularization, were cytocompatible with human cells in vitro, had increased porosity
while maintaining the donor material’s tensile properties, and were able to promote host
34
cell infiltration in vivo using a mouse model. To improve scaffold strength, remodeling and
cell infiltration, cells can be directly seeded into the scaffold and conditioned with a
bioreactor.
C. Cell Seeded Scaffolds and Bioreactors
Several studies have highlighted the deleterious effects of prolonged rest and the beneficial
effects of cyclic loading and activity on the regeneration of injured musculoskeletal tissues
69. Incorporating this knowledge to the field of tissue engineering led to a new evolving
discipline termed “functional tissue engineering” which represents a multidisciplinary
approach using stem cells, biocompatible scaffolds, and mechanical stimulation to produce
constructs that mimic the biomechanical properties of native tissue and have the potential
to revolutionize surgical reconstruction of injured tendons and ligaments70. The utilization
of a bioreactor to apply mechanical strain to a seeded construct has shown to stimulate cell
proliferation, and to increase production of collagen type I and III as well as extracellular
matrix proteins 58, 71-73. Perhaps more importantly, the mechanical stimulation organizes
collagen deposition to model the appropriate architecture needed for sufficient load bearing
capacity. 61, 74 Recently, the authors of this chapter showed that tensile properties of seeded
scaffolds decreased significantly after seeding in the absence of strain 75. This decrease in
tensile properties was temporally associated with a higher level of MMP-2 expression and
higher level of Collagen III expression. MMP-2 is a matrix metalloproteinase that plays a
role in the initial degradation of tensile properties observed in scaffolds and others have
found that after an initial degradation in tensile properties in “under-stimulated” tenocyte
seeded scaffolds, peak stresses can be restored by the addition of protease inhibitors or
35
mechanical loading 76. Collagen III is associated with scar formation during tendon healing
as well as the decreased tensile properties of scar tissue. Therefore, a higher level of
Collagen III expression may represent a shift towards the formation of scar tissue which is
inferior in tensile properties compared to native tissue. Application of cyclic strain to
seeded scaffolds produced constructs that were not significantly different from those of
fresh-frozen tendons emphasizing the importance of mechanical strain on cell-seeded
bioscaffolds to produce a functional tissue engineered construct. Although these studies
have improved our knowledge of ligament tissue engineering, bioreactor conditioned tissue
constructs are yet to be adopted into common clinical orthopaedic practice. Future in vivo
study in larger animal models will be necessary before this strategy can translate to human
use.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The reconstruction of tendon and ligament injuries remains a challenge for orthopaedic
surgeons. Because most of the synthetic grafts that have been developed in the past 30
years are prone to creep, fatigue, and mechanical failure, failure analysis of these grafts has
created the basis for future research. Unfortunately, to date no ideal substitute has been
found that can mimic natural human tissue. Every synthetic graft used has been found to
have drawbacks and many have subsequently required removal from the market, an ill-
fated trend that the Swedish surgeon Einar Eriksson already anticipated in 1976 when he
compared synthetic grafts with “shoestrings, which if used continually, eventually break”.
77 Therefore, it is off critical importance to understand the structure-function relationship
of the tissue that needs to be reconstructed in order to develop a tissue- engineered construct
36
that can adequately restore and maintain normal tissue function. As previously stated, we
believe that an ideal scaffold for tendon and ligament reconstruction would be naturally-
derived from either allogeneic or xenogeneic material.17, 67 Naturally-derived scaffolds
consist of extracellular matrix which serves as a template for cell infiltration,
differentiation, and remodeling. A number of naturally-derived scaffolds consisting of
extracellular matrix are already commercially available for reconstruction of
musculotendinous structures and have been tested clinically with promising results. Future
endeavors will identify additional tissue sources and optimize methods of procurement,
decellularization and preconditioning to successfully replace and reconstruct tendon and
ligament injuries.
37
REFERENCES
1. Butler DL, Awad HA. Perspectives on cell and collagen composites for tendon
repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Oct(367 Suppl):S324-32. Epub 1999/11/05.
2. Jackson DW, Corsetti J, Simon TM. Biologic incorporation of allograft anterior
cruciate ligament replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Mar(324):126-33. Epub
1996/03/01.
3. Poehling GG, Curl WW, Lee CA, Ginn TA, Rushing JT, Naughton MJ, et al.
Analysis of outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament repair with 5-year follow-up: allograft
versus autograft. Arthroscopy. 2005 Jul;21(7):774-85. Epub 2005/07/14.
4. Rathbone S, Maffulli N, Cartmell SH. Most british surgeons would consider using
a tissue-engineered anterior cruciate ligament: a questionnaire study. Stem Cells Int.
2012;2012:303724. Epub 2012/05/09.
5. Leong NL, Petrigliano FA, McAllister DR. Current tissue engineering strategies in
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013 Jun 4. Epub
2013/06/06.
6. Petrigliano FA, McAllister DR, Wu BM. Tissue engineering for anterior cruciate
ligament reconstruction: a review of current strategies. Arthroscopy. 2006 Apr;22(4):441-
51. Epub 2006/04/04.
7. Mody BS, Howard L, Harding ML, Parmar HV, Learmonth DJ. The ABC carbon
and polyester prosthetic ligament for ACL-deficient knees. Early results in 31 cases. J Bone
Joint Surg Br. 1993 Sep;75(5):818-21. Epub 1993/09/01.
38
8. Glousman R, Shields C, Jr., Kerlan R, Jobe F, Lombardo S, Yocum L, et al. Gore-
Tex prosthetic ligament in anterior cruciate deficient knees. Am J Sports Med. 1988 Jul-
Aug;16(4):321-6. Epub 1988/07/01.
9. Barrett GR, Line LL, Jr., Shelton WR, Manning JO, Phelps R. The Dacron ligament
prosthesis in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A four-year review. Am J Sports
Med. 1993 May-Jun;21(3):367-73. Epub 1993/05/01.
10. Macnicol MF, Penny ID, Sheppard L. Early results of the Leeds-Keio anterior
cruciate ligament replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991 May;73(3):377-80. Epub
1991/05/01.
11. Girgis FG, Marshall JL, Monajem A. The cruciate ligaments of the knee joint.
Anatomical, functional and experimental analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975 Jan-
Feb(106):216-31. Epub 1975/01/01.
12. Legnani C, Ventura A, Terzaghi C, Borgo E, Albisetti W. Anterior cruciate
ligament reconstruction with synthetic grafts. A review of literature. Int Orthop. 2010
Apr;34(4):465-71. Epub 2010/02/17.
13. Mascarenhas R, MacDonald PB. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a look
at prosthetics--past, present and possible future. Mcgill J Med. 2008 Jan;11(1):29-37. Epub
2008/06/05.
14. Ricchetti ET, Aurora A, Iannotti JP, Derwin KA. Scaffold devices for rotator cuff
repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Feb;21(2):251-65. Epub 2012/01/17.
15. Iannotti JP, Codsi MJ, Kwon YW, Derwin K, Ciccone J, Brems JJ. Porcine small
intestine submucosa augmentation of surgical repair of chronic two-tendon rotator cuff
39
tears. A randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jun;88(6):1238-44. Epub
2006/06/08.
16. Barber FA, Burns JP, Deutsch A, Labbe MR, Litchfield RB. A prospective,
randomized evaluation of acellular human dermal matrix augmentation for arthroscopic
rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2012 Jan;28(1):8-15. Epub 2011/10/08.
17. Whitlock PW, Smith TL, Poehling GG, Shilt JS, Van Dyke M. A naturally derived,
cytocompatible, and architecturally optimized scaffold for tendon and ligament
regeneration. Biomaterials. 2007 Oct;28(29):4321-9. Epub 2007/07/06.
18. Kennedy JC, Roth JH, Mendenhall HV, Sanford JB. Presidential address.
Intraarticular replacement in the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. Am J Sports
Med. 1980 Jan-Feb;8(1):1-8. Epub 1980/01/01.
19. AAOS. Bone and soft-tissue allografts processing and safety. AAOS Now.
2011;May 2011.
20. Joyce MJ, Greenwald AS, Boden S, Brubaker S, Heim CS. Musculoskeletal
Allograft Tissue Safety. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Committee on
Biological Implants Tissue Work Group; March 2008; San Francisco CA2008.
21. Schubert T, Bigare E, Van Isacker T, Gigi J, Delloye C, Cornu O. Analysis of
predisposing factors for contamination of bone and tendon allografts. Cell Tissue Bank.
2012 Aug;13(3):421-9. Epub 2012/01/04.
22. Neri BR, Chan KW, Kwon YW. Management of massive and irreparable rotator
cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Sep-Oct;18(5):808-18. Epub 2009/06/03.
40
23. Bigliani LU, Cordasco FA, McIlveen SJ, Musso ES. Operative treatment of failed
repairs of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992 Dec;74(10):1505-15. Epub
1992/12/01.
24. Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. The outcome and
repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Feb;86-A(2):219-24. Epub 2004/02/13.
25. Galatz LM, Griggs S, Cameron BD, Iannotti JP. Prospective longitudinal analysis
of postoperative shoulder function : a ten-year follow-up study of full-thickness rotator cuff
tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Jul;83-A(7):1052-6. Epub 2001/07/14.
26. Oh JH, Kim SH, Ji HM, Jo KH, Bin SW, Gong HS. Prognostic factors affecting
anatomic outcome of rotator cuff repair and correlation with functional outcome.
Arthroscopy. 2009 Jan;25(1):30-9. Epub 2008/12/30.
27. Goutallier D, Postel JM, Gleyze P, Leguilloux P, Van Driessche S. Influence of
cuff muscle fatty degeneration on anatomic and functional outcomes after simple suture of
full-thickness tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Nov-Dec;12(6):550-4. Epub 2003/12/13.
28. Cole BJ, McCarty LP, 3rd, Kang RW, Alford W, Lewis PB, Hayden JK.
Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: prospective functional outcome and repair integrity at
minimum 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Sep-Oct;16(5):579-85. Epub
2007/07/17.
29. Dines JS, Grande DA, Dines DM. Tissue engineering and rotator cuff tendon
healing. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Sep-Oct;16(5 Suppl):S204-7. Epub 2007/05/26.
41
30. Ide J, Kikukawa K, Hirose J, Iyama K, Sakamoto H, Mizuta H. Reconstruction of
large rotator-cuff tears with acellular dermal matrix grafts in rats. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.
2009 Mar-Apr;18(2):288-95. Epub 2008/12/09.
31. Gimbel JA, Van Kleunen JP, Lake SP, Williams GR, Soslowsky LJ. The role of
repair tension on tendon to bone healing in an animal model of chronic rotator cuff tears. J
Biomech. 2007;40(3):561-8. Epub 2006/04/08.
32. Aurora A, McCarron JA, van den Bogert AJ, Gatica JE, Iannotti JP, Derwin KA.
The biomechanical role of scaffolds in augmented rotator cuff tendon repairs. J Shoulder
Elbow Surg. 2012 Aug;21(8):1064-71. Epub 2011/09/03.
33. Mannava S, Plate JF, Whitlock PW, Callahan MF, Seyler TM, Koman LA, et al.
Evaluation of in vivo rotator cuff muscle function after acute and chronic detachment of
the supraspinatus tendon: an experimental study in an animal model. J Bone Joint Surg
Am. 2011 Sep 21;93(18):1702-11. Epub 2011/09/23.
34. Gottlob CA, Baker CL, Jr., Pellissier JM, Colvin L. Cost effectiveness of anterior
cruciate ligament reconstruction in young adults. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999
Oct(367):272-82. Epub 1999/11/05.
35. Chang SK, Egami DK, Shaieb MD, Kan DM, Richardson AB. Anterior cruciate
ligament reconstruction: allograft versus autograft. Arthroscopy. 2003 May-Jun;19(5):453-
62. Epub 2003/05/02.
36. Sherman OH, Banffy MB. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: which graft
is best? Arthroscopy. 2004 Nov;20(9):974-80. Epub 2004/11/05.
42
37. Vangsness CT, Jr., Garcia IA, Mills CR, Kainer MA, Roberts MR, Moore TM.
Allograft transplantation in the knee: tissue regulation, procurement, processing, and
sterilization. Am J Sports Med. 2003 May-Jun;31(3):474-81. Epub 2003/05/17.
38. Jones DB, Huddleston PM, Zobitz ME, Stuart MJ. Mechanical properties of
patellar tendon allografts subjected to chemical sterilization. Arthroscopy. 2007
Apr;23(4):400-4. Epub 2007/04/10.
39. Vunjak-Novakovic G, Altman G, Horan R, Kaplan DL. Tissue engineering of
ligaments. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2004;6:131-56. Epub 2004/07/17.
40. Stone KR, Abdel-Motal UM, Walgenbach AW, Turek TJ, Galili U. Replacement
of human anterior cruciate ligaments with pig ligaments: a model for anti-non-gal antibody
response in long-term xenotransplantation. Transplantation. 2007 Jan 27;83(2):211-9.
Epub 2007/02/01.
41. Galili U. The alpha-gal epitope and the anti-Gal antibody in xenotransplantation
and in cancer immunotherapy. Immunol Cell Biol. 2005 Dec;83(6):674-86. Epub
2005/11/04.
42. Galili U. Significance of anti-Gal IgG in chronic xenograft rejection. Transplant
Proc. 1999 Feb-Mar;31(1-2):940-1. Epub 1999/03/20.
43. Stone KR, Walgenbach AW, Turek TJ, Somers DL, Wicomb W, Galili U. Anterior
cruciate ligament reconstruction with a porcine xenograft: a serologic, histologic, and
biomechanical study in primates. Arthroscopy. 2007 Apr;23(4):411-9. Epub 2007/04/10.
44. Min BH, Han MS, Woo JI, Park HJ, Park SR. The origin of cells that repopulate
patellar tendons used for reconstructing anterior cruciate ligaments in man. J Bone Joint
Surg Br. 2003 Jul;85(5):753-7. Epub 2003/08/02.
43
45. Nikolaou PK, Seaber AV, Glisson RR, Ribbeck BM, Bassett FH, 3rd. Anterior
cruciate ligament allograft transplantation. Long-term function, histology,
revascularization, and operative technique. Am J Sports Med. 1986 Sep-Oct;14(5):348-60.
Epub 1986/09/01.
46. Schindler OS. Surgery for anterior cruciate ligament deficiency: a historical
perspective. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Jan;20(1):5-47. Epub
2011/11/23.
47. Olson EJ, Kang JD, Fu FH, Georgescu HI, Mason GC, Evans CH. The biochemical
and histological effects of artificial ligament wear particles: in vitro and in vivo studies.
Am J Sports Med. 1988 Nov-Dec;16(6):558-70. Epub 1988/11/01.
48. Frank CB, Jackson DW. The science of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate
ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Oct;79(10):1556-76. Epub 1997/10/31.
49. Laurencin CT, Ambrosio AM, Borden MD, Cooper JA, Jr. Tissue engineering:
orthopedic applications. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 1999;1:19-46. Epub 2001/11/10.
50. Laurencin CT, Freeman JW. Ligament tissue engineering: an evolutionary
materials science approach. Biomaterials. 2005 Dec;26(36):7530-6. Epub 2005/07/28.
51. Laurencin CT, Khan Y, Kofron M, El-Amin S, Botchwey E, Yu X, et al. The ABJS
Nicolas Andry Award: Tissue engineering of bone and ligament: a 15-year perspective.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jun;447:221-36. Epub 2006/06/03.
52. Bolton CW, Bruchman WC. The GORE-TEX expanded polytetrafluoroethylene
prosthetic ligament. An in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985
Jun(196):202-13. Epub 1985/06/01.
44
53. Lukianov AV, Richmond JC, Barrett GR, Gillquist J. A multicenter study on the
results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a Dacron ligament prosthesis in
"salvage" cases. Am J Sports Med. 1989 May-Jun;17(3):380-5; discussion 5-6. Epub
1989/05/01.
54. Schindhelm K, Rogers GJ, Milthorpe BK, Hall PJ, Howlett CR, Sekel R, et al.
Autograft and Leeds-Keio reconstructions of the ovine anterior cruciate ligament. Clin
Orthop Relat Res. 1991 Jun(267):278-93. Epub 1991/06/01.
55. Weiss AB, Blazina ME, Goldstein AR, Alexander H. Ligament replacement with
an absorbable copolymer carbon fiber scaffold--early clinical experience. Clin Orthop
Relat Res. 1985 Jun(196):77-85. Epub 1985/06/01.
56. Margevicius KJ, Claes LE, Durselen L, Hanselmann K. Identification and
distribution of synthetic ligament wear particles in sheep. J Biomed Mater Res. 1996
Jul;31(3):319-28. Epub 1996/07/01.
57. Garvin J, Qi J, Maloney M, Banes AJ. Novel system for engineering bioartificial
tendons and application of mechanical load. Tissue Eng. 2003 Oct;9(5):967-79. Epub
2003/11/25.
58. Altman GH, Horan RL, Martin I, Farhadi J, Stark PR, Volloch V, et al. Cell
differentiation by mechanical stress. FASEB J. 2002 Feb;16(2):270-2. Epub 2002/01/05.
59. Butler DL, Goldstein SA, Guilak F. Functional tissue engineering: the role of
biomechanics. J Biomech Eng. 2000 Dec;122(6):570-5. Epub 2001/02/24.
60. Shah N, Morsi Y, Manasseh R. From mechanical stimulation to biological
pathways in the regulation of stem cell fate. Cell Biochem Funct. 2014 Feb 27. Epub
2014/02/28.
45
61. Rodrigues MT, Reis RL, Gomes ME. Engineering tendon and ligament tissues:
present developments towards successful clinical products. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2013
Sep;7(9):673-86. Epub 2012/04/14.
62. Romanini E, D'Angelo F, De Masi S, Adriani E, Magaletti M, Lacorte E, et al. Graft
selection in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Traumatol.
2010 Dec;11(4):211-9. Epub 2010/12/25.
63. Tischer T, Aryee S, Wexel G, Steinhauser E, Adamczyk C, Eichhorn S, et al. Tissue
engineering of the anterior cruciate ligament-sodium dodecyl sulfate-acellularized and
revitalized tendons are inferior to native tendons. Tissue Eng Part A. 2010 Mar;16(3):1031-
40. Epub 2009/10/23.
64. Lin VS, Lee MC, O'Neal S, McKean J, Sung KL. Ligament tissue engineering using
synthetic biodegradable fiber scaffolds. Tissue Eng. 1999 Oct;5(5):443-52. Epub
1999/12/10.
65. Gentleman E, Livesay GA, Dee KC, Nauman EA. Development of ligament-like
structural organization and properties in cell-seeded collagen scaffolds in vitro. Ann
Biomed Eng. 2006 May;34(5):726-36. Epub 2006/02/08.
66. Whitlock PW, Van Dyke M, Poehling GG, Smith TL, Marker DR, Koman LA, et
al. Functional Tissue Engineering of Tendons and Ligaments. American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meeting; 2009; Las Vegas NV2009.
67. Whitlock PW, Seyler TM, Parks GD, Ornelles DA, Smith TL, Van Dyke ME, et al.
A novel process for optimizing musculoskeletal allograft tissue to improve safety,
ultrastructural properties, and cell infiltration. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Aug
15;94(16):1458-67. Epub 2012/07/13.
46
68. Whitlock PW, Smith TL, Shilt JS, Van Dyke ME, Poehling GG. A Novel Scaffold
for Tendon and Ligament Regeneration Derived from Human Allograft Tissue. Combined
Meeting of the International Orthopaedic Research Societies; October 2007; Honolulu
HI2007.
69. Buckwalter JA, Grodzinsky AJ. Loading of healing bone, fibrous tissue, and
muscle: implications for orthopaedic practice. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1999 Sep-
Oct;7(5):291-9. Epub 1999/10/03.
70. Butler DL, Juncosa-Melvin N, Boivin GP, Galloway MT, Shearn JT, Gooch C, et
al. Functional tissue engineering for tendon repair: A multidisciplinary strategy using
mesenchymal stem cells, bioscaffolds, and mechanical stimulation. J Orthop Res. 2008
Jan;26(1):1-9. Epub 2007/08/07.
71. Webb K, Hitchcock RW, Smeal RM, Li W, Gray SD, Tresco PA. Cyclic strain
increases fibroblast proliferation, matrix accumulation, and elastic modulus of fibroblast-
seeded polyurethane constructs. J Biomech. 2006;39(6):1136-44. Epub 2005/11/01.
72. Hohlrieder M, Teuschl AH, Cicha K, van Griensven M, Redl H, Stampfl J.
Bioreactor and scaffold design for the mechanical stimulation of anterior cruciate ligament
grafts. Biomed Mater Eng. 2013;23(3):225-37. Epub 2013/05/01.
73. Wang T, Gardiner BS, Lin Z, Rubenson J, Kirk TB, Wang A, et al. Bioreactor
design for tendon/ligament engineering. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2013 Apr;19(2):133-46.
Epub 2012/10/18.
74. Yilgor C, Yilgor Huri P, Huri G. Tissue engineering strategies in ligament
regeneration. Stem Cells Int. 2012;2012:374676. Epub 2012/01/14.
47
75. Whitlock PW, Seyler TM, Northam C, Smith TL, Van Dyke ME, Poehling GG, et
al. The Effect of Cyclic Strain on the Tensile Properties of a Naturally-Derived,
Decellularized Tendon Scaffold Seeded with Allogeneic Tenocytes and Associated mRNA
Expression. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2012;Accepted for publication.
76. Cousineau-Pelletier P, Langelier E. Relative contributions of mechanical
degradation, enzymatic degradation, and repair of the extracellular matrix on the response
of tendons when subjected to under- and over- mechanical stimulations in vitro. J Orthop
Res. 2010 Feb;28(2):204-10. Epub 2009/09/03.
77. Eriksson E. Sports injuries of the knee ligaments: their diagnosis, treatment,
rehabilitation, and prevention. Med Sci Sports. 1976 Fall;8(3):133-44. Epub 1976/01/01.
48
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Number of Pubmed listed publications on the topic of tissue engineering of ligaments. Search conducted on 04/24/2013 using the keywords “tissue engineering” and “ligament”. Thirteen publications found for the year 2013 so far which represents last data point in graph. Increased activity noted since 1999/2000.
49
Table I. Augmentation Devices for Rotator Cuff Repair
Name Material Source Comments Distributed by
Restore Small Intestinal Submucosa Porcine DePuy Orthopaedics CuffPatch Small Intestinal Submucosa Porcine cross-linked Biomet/Organogenesis GraftJacket Dermis Human Wright Medical Technology
ArthroFlex Dermis Human Arthrex Conexa Dermis Porcine α-Gal
reduced Tornier
TissueMend Dermis Bovine fetal Stryker/TEI Biosciences Zimmer Collagen Repair (Permacol) Patch
Dermis Porcine cross-linked Zimmer/Tissue Science Laboratories
Bio-Blanket Dermis Bovine cross-linked Kensay Nash Allopatch HD Fascia lata Human Musculoskeletal Tissue Foundation
(MTF)
Gore Dualmesh Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Synthetic Gore Medical Bard PTFE Felt Pledgets
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Synthetic CR Bard
SportMesh Poly(urethaneurea) Synthetic Biomet/Arthrotek X-Repair Poly-L-lactide Synthetic Synthasome Biomerix RCR Patch Polycarbonate
poly(urethaneurea) Synthetic Biomerix
OrthADAPT PR Bioimplant
Pericardium with woven polymer
Equine/Synthetic cross-linked Pegasus Biologics
50
Table II. Prosthetics and Augmentation Devices for ACL Reconstruction
Name Material Disadvantage Proplast polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) with
embedded carbon or aluminum oxide fibers high rupture rate due to inadquate mechanical properties, inflammatory reaction
Polyflex ultra-high-polymerized polyethylene high rupture rate due to inadquate mechanical properties, inflammatory reaction
Dacron polyethylene terephthalate (PET) Poor long-term stability Ligament Augmentation Device (LAD) braided polypropylene Weak implant-graft interface, tendency to
stretch out and cause instability, inflammatory response, and synovitis and effusions
Gore-Tex braided bundles of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
Immunological response to wear particles, progressive long-term loosening
ABC prosthetic ACL carbon and polyester fibres oriented in a partial braid by a zig-zag pattern
high failure rate due to abrasion of the ligament at the tibial tunnel
Leeds-Keio ligament polyethylene terephthalate mesh Long-term failures, poor instability Integraft carbon fibers Poor shear stress behaviour, high failure
rates, inflammatory response
Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS)
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) Laxity, rupture risk, poor long-term stability
Trevira-hochfest ligament polyethylene terephthalate (PET) inadequate resistance to abrasion and torsion forces, long-term failure
51
CHAPTER 3
A NOVEL PROCESS FOR OPTIMIZING MUSCULOSKELETAL ALLOGRAFT
TISSUE: IMPROVING SAFETY, ULTRA-STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES AND
CELL INFILTRATION.
Patrick W. Whitlock, M.D., Ph.D.1,2;Thorsten M. Seyler, M.D.1,2; Griffith D. Parks,
Ph.D.3; David A. Ornelles, Ph.D.3; Thomas L. Smith, Ph.D.1,2; Mark E. Van Dyke, Ph.D.
1,2; Gary G. Poehling, M.D.1,2
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Medical
Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27157
2Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Medical
Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27157
3Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Wake Forest University Health Sciences,
Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27157
52
The following manuscript was published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
American Volume on August 15th 2012. This chapter is reprinted with permission. Stylistic
variations are due to the requirements of the journal. Thorsten M. Seyler made substantial
contributions to the conception of the work and all experiments. Participated in the
acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for all experiments. Drafting the work and
revising it critically for important intellectual content including final approval of the
version to be published. Drs. Whitlock and Seyler are accountable for all aspects of the
work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work
are appropriately investigated and resolved.
53
ABSTRACT
Background: This study evaluated the properties of a freeze-dried human Achilles tendon
allograft (hFDATA) - derived scaffold for use in ACL reconstruction. Our hypothesis was
that hFDATAs could be processed using a method to remove cellular and infectious
material to produce a cyto-compatible, architecturally- modified scaffold possessing tensile
properties suitable for ACL reconstruction.
Methods: Fifty-two hFDATAs were provided by a tissue bank. Twenty-one were used as
controls to assess cellularity, DNA content, micro-architecture, porosity, cyto-
compatibility, and tensile properties in vitro (n=13) and in vivo (n=8). Thirty-one were
processed to produce scaffolds that were similarly assessed for those properties in vitro
(n=23) and in vivo (n=8). The elimination of “spiked” non-enveloped and enveloped virus
was also determined after each processing step in vitro.
Results: Cellularity and DNA content were decreased significantly in hFDATA-derived
scaffolds. The scaffolds’ porosity increased significantly, and they were cyto-compatible
in vitro. Processing resulted in significantly increased percent elongation (138.47% of that
observed for hFDATAs) of scaffolds. No other significant differences in tensile properties
were observed in vitro or in vivo. The number of infiltrating host cells and the depth to
which those cells infiltrated was significantly greater in the scaffolds. No enveloped viruses
and only two of 108 non-enveloped viral particles were detected in the scaffolds after
processing equating to a sterility assurance level (SAL) of 0.2 x 10-7.
Conclusions: hFDATAs were processed using a method that removed cellular and
infectious material to produce a decellularized, cyto-compatible, architecturally-modified
scaffold with tensile properties that differed minimally from human allograft tissue both in
54
vitro and in vivo. The process also resulted in an increase in scaffold porosity that led to an
increase in cell infiltration in vivo.
Level of evidence: Basic science study
Clinical Relevance: hFDATA-derived scaffolds have the potential to eliminate disease
transmission and inflammation in recipients and to promote early and improved cell
infiltration while retaining the initial tensile properties necessary to withstand
rehabilitation after implantation.
55
INTRODUCTION
The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a commonly injured knee ligament;
400,000 patients undergo reconstruction annually.1-3 Graft choices for ACL reconstruction
include autograft and allografts, with 60,000 allograft reconstructions annually.2,3
Allografts and autografts demonstrate remodeling following ACL reconstruction; a process
termed “ligamentization”, ideally results in a tissue that is histologically and biochemically
similar to native ACL.4-8
Synthetic and naturally-derived ACL repair scaffolds are associated with a high
incidence of chronic foreign body inflammation, debris-induced synovitis, mechanical
limitations, and graft failure.9-11 Tissue-engineered strategies for ACL reconstruction rely
predominantly upon biodegradable polymeric scaffolds. However, current biodegradable
scaffolds do not initially possess the mechanical properties necessary for reconstruction
and are associated with potential release of toxic byproducts during degradation.12-14 The
focus has shifted to the use of naturally derived scaffolds and alternative materials for ACL
reconstruction.15,16 Naturally-derived scaffolds combine important advantages including:
decreased operative time and patient morbidity, established fixation methods,
biocompatibility, preservation of extracellular protein matrix, and biodegradation allowing
for maintenance of tensile properties. Disadvantages include potential transmission from
xenograft and allograft source material, dense micro-architecture delaying or inhibiting
remodeling of implanted grafts, immunogenic cellular epitopes such as alpha-galactosyl
(xenografts), and residual donor antigenic material within the scaffold (e.g. DNA), which
may promote sterile inflammation and scaffold failure.12-14
56
Decellularized tissues have been used in many orthopaedic applications.17-19 However,
prior attempts to produce decellularized tissue grafts investigated the histological
elimination of donor cells and sterilization of donor tissue and have not addressed the dense
micro-architecture of the donor tissue or the complete elimination of donor cellular
material. Limited success or failure of those grafts was partly associated with undetectable
residual cellular material in the dense micro-architecture of the donor tissue.17-19 Recently,
successful methods for producing a decellularized, architecturally-modified scaffold
derived from tendon with minimal residual cellular material in the resulting scaffold have
been reported.20
The successful ACL reconstruction with allografts is well-documented.3,21,22 This
study evaluated the biologic and biomechanical properties of an architecturally-modified,
freeze-dried human Achilles tendon allograft (hFDATA) - derived scaffold for use in ACL
reconstruction. We hypothesized that hFDATAs could be processed to remove cellular and
infectious material, producing decellularized, cyto-compatible, architecturally-modified
scaffolds that promoted rapid cell infiltration in vivo, and possessed tensile properties in
vitro and in vivo similar to a tissue currently used for ACL reconstruction, hFDATA.
57
MATERIALS & METHODS
Preparation of hFDATA-derived Scaffolds
Fifty-two human freeze-dried Achilles tendon allografts (hFDATAs) (MTF™)
were prepared as previously described, Appendix A. 20 hFDATAs were washed in aqueous,
hypotonic solutions followed by trypsin digestion and a combined oxidative (peracetic
acid)-detergent (Triton X-100™) step. The products, referred to as scaffolds, were rinsed,
and freeze-dried, and stored at -80°C until further use (Figure 1).
Histologic Analysis of hFDATAs and Scaffolds
Mid-substance portions of the hFDATAs (n=10) and scaffolds (n=10) were fixed,
processed and embedded for histology. Sections were stained using hematoxylin and eosin
(H&E, Sigma) or 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI, Vector) to identify cellular and
nuclear components, respectively. Representative light (H&E) and fluorescence (DAPI)
micrographs were taken at 200X magnification.
DNA Content of hFDATAs and Scaffolds
Samples of hFDATAs (n=10) and scaffolds (n=10) were weighed and placed into
sterile 1.5 ml micro-centrifuge tubes. Total DNA was isolated from both samples using
DNeasy™ (Qiagen). Total DNA content at λ=280 nm was calculated using a
spectrophotometer (Thermo Spectronic), and normalized to the samples’ initial dry weight.
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) of hFDATAs and Scaffolds
Specimens of hFDATAs (n=10) and scaffolds (n=10) were processed and cross-
sectional SEMs were obtained at 15.0 kV, 50 Pa, 150X magnification (Hitachi S-2600
Scanning Electron Microscope, Hitachi High Technologies America).
58
Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry of hFDATAs and Scaffolds
Samples of hFDATAs (n=3) and scaffolds (n=3) were weighed and placed into a
penetrometer, which was evacuated, and filled with mercury (initial pressure of ~30 psi)
(Micromeritics Instrument Corporation). The penetrometer was transferred into a high
pressure chamber (50,000 psi) while the intruded volume was recorded. The intruded
mercury volume per gram sample was measured by the porosimeter and was assumed to
be equal to pore volume (Vpore). Porosity (ε) was calculated using the formula: % porosity
= (1- envelope density/skeletal density)*100.
Residual Peracetic Acid Analysis
Commercially available peracetic acid (PAA) test strips (EMD Chemicals Inc.)
measured PAA concentration in the initial processing solution and after each wash step at
24h, 48h, and 72h in parts per million (ppm), (n=10).
In Vitro Cyto-compatibility of Scaffolds: Direct Contact Method
Scaffolds (n=10) were removed from storage and placed into 70% ethanol for 12
hours at 4°C. Scaffolds were removed and washed briefly three times in 50 ml of cell
culture media containing antibiotic-antimycotic (Sigma) before the MTS® (Promega) and
neutral red assays. Sterile latex fragments, the negative control (n=10), were treated
similarly. Cell proliferation/metabolic activity (MTS®) and cell viability (neutral red
release/uptake assay) of NIH 3T3 cells were determined as previously described. 20,23,24
Assessment of Virus-inactivating Efficacy During Production of Scaffolds
hFDATAs were recovered from disease-free donors under aseptic conditions (n=4).
The tendon central portion was cut into 1cm x 2cm sections and immersed in 20mL of
DMEM (Gibco) supplemented with 2% FBS (Valley Labs). Three tissue sections from
59
each donor were spiked with 108 Plaque Forming Units (PFU) of Vesicular Stomatitis virus
(VSV, enveloped), Simian virus 5 (SV5, enveloped), or adenovirus (Ad, non-enveloped).
Spiked fragments were incubated on a shaker (160rpm) at 37°C for 12 hours. After
incubation, remaining virus titers were determined at four different steps in the scaffold
production process by standard viral plaque assays on CV-1 (SV5 and VSV) or 293
(Adenovirus) cell monolayers to determine the virus-inactivating efficacy of each
processing step.
Tensile Testing of hFDATAs and Scaffolds
hFDATAs (n=10) and scaffolds (n=10) were equilibrated in sterile Dulbecco’s
Phosphate Buffered Saline (DPBS, Gibco) at 37°C for 30 minutes. Specimens were cut
using a custom “dogbone-type” punch (Freeman™) approximating ASTM™ standards.
The punch measurements included an outer length of 40 mm, inner length of 20 mm x outer
width of 8 mm, inner width of 4 mm x measured thickness. The outer width (8 mm) tapered
at the sample neck to the inner width (4 mm) to form the desired specimen shape or “dog-
bone”. Each tested specimen was individually measured with digital calipers; the length,
width, thickness and cross-sectional area of each were recorded. The specimens were
mounted in custom, serrated pneumatic clamps on a uniaxial load frame (Instron™ 5544)
utilizing a 2kN static load cell (Instron™) with an accuracy of 0.5% of the tested specimen
to 1/500th of load cell capacity. Tendons were pre-loaded to 0.1N, pre-conditioned 10
times to 0.1mm extension, and loaded to failure at a rate of 10 mm/minute (strain rate of
1.11%/second). Tendons were kept moist during testing with DPBS mist. Ultimate tensile
load (UTL, N) was the maximal load recorded during each test. Ultimate tensile stress
(UTS, MPa) at break was the maximal load recorded during each test normalized to
60
specimen cross-sectional area. The percent strain at UTS was calculated using the
displacement data and initial specimen length measured with digital calipers after
placement of samples in the test grips. Elastic modulus (E, MPa) and stiffness (N/mm)
were calculated from the linear portion of the stress–strain curve and from load-elongation
data, respectively.25-30
In Vivo Implantation of hFDATAs and Scaffolds
The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved the animal protocol.
Sixteen skeletally mature New Zealand White rabbits (28-32 weeks old, 3.5-4 kg weight)
were used for studying tensile properties and histology of ACL reconstruction in an
established animal model.31 Rabbits were assigned to 1: ACL reconstruction using the
hFDATAs (n=8); or 2: ACL reconstruction using the scaffolds (n=8). Anesthesia was
induced by 35 mg/kg ketamine, supplemented by 5% of isoflurane. Anesthesia was
maintained by 1.5-2% of isoflurane and oxygen. Intramuscular enrofloxacin (10 mg/kg)
was used for antibiotic prophylaxis. Surgery was performed using aseptic technique. A
midline skin incision, followed by a lateral parapatellar arthrotomy exposed the right knee.
The patella was dislocated medially with the knee extended, and native ACL was resected
by sharp dissection. The tibial bone tunnel was created in a retrograde fashion using a
Micro VECTOR™ Drill Guide System (Smith & Nephew, Andover, Massachusetts, USA)
with a 3.2 mm cannulated bullet and a 3.2 mm drill necked down to 3.0 mm distally with
the transtibial angle set at 55°. The femoral tunnel was created from the insertion site of
the native ACL in the femoral notch to the lateral femoral condyle at the 10-o'clock position
using a free-hand surgical technique. The final graft was prepared by trimming the
midportion of either an hFDATA or scaffold using a #15 blade. The midportion was
61
prepared to a diameter of 3 mm and a length of 50 mm. Both ends of the graft were secured
with a Vicryl stitch. The proximal Vicryl stitch was passed through the lumen of a large
straight needle and the graft was passed through the tibial and femoral bone tunnels, leaving
the proximal stitch within the femoral tunnel. The proximal Vicryl stitch was used to pull
the graft into final position and to ensure a snug fit within the bone tunnels. Adequate
exposure for placement of the femoral holding stitch, was obtained by dissection to expose
the lateral femoral condyle through the existing midline. After passing the graft, the knee
joint was moved through 5-10 cycles of full motion before both ends of the graft were
secured under slight tension in 30-35° of flexion to the periosteum using 3-0 Prolene suture
(Ethicon). The deep layers of the wound were closed in a using 4-0 Vicryl, and the skin
was closed using a 4-0 nylon (Ethicon) subcuticular suture and tissue glue. Postoperatively,
rabbits moved freely in individual cages and were assessed daily for pain. Rabbits were
given 0.05 mg/kg of buprenorphine intramuscularly every six to eight hours for three to
five days after surgery to control pain. At twelve weeks, the animals were sacrificed by
intracardiac injection of pentobarbital Na.
Tensile Testing of Implanted hFDATAs and Scaffolds
Ten rabbit knees implanted with either hFDATA (n=5) or scaffolds (n=5) were used
for tensile analysis.31,32 The right hind limbs were disarticulated at the hip and stored at –
20°C until testing. Before testing, the limbs were thawed, and all extraneous soft tissues
removed. The femur-ACL graft-tibia complexes were potted using Bondo epoxy (Mar-
Hyde Corp.). These were fixed in clamps with the femur and tibia oriented at angles of 45°
and 30°, respectively. This preparation allowed tensile loading along the long axis of the
graft in the material testing system (Instron model 5544, 2kN static load cell). A preload of
62
0.5 N was applied for 60 seconds to determine the resting gauge length of the graft and the
cross-sectional area of the midsubstance using digital calipers, followed by cyclic
preconditioning of the constructs from 0 to 0.3 mm elongation (10 mm/min) to achieve a
steady state. Load-to-failure testing was performed by increasing the tensile load
continuously at a rate of 10 mm/min.31,32 Ultimate tensile load (UTL, N), ultimate tensile
stress (UTS, MPa) at break, % strain at UTS, elastic modulus (E, MPa) and stiffness
(N/mm) were calculated as previously described.25-30
Histology of Implanted Scaffolds
Six rabbit knees, implanted with either the hFDATAs (n=3) or scaffolds (n=3) were
processed for histological analysis. The harvested femur-ACL graft-tibia complexes were
fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin, decalcified in formic acid/Immunocal (Decal
Chemical), dehydrated with ethanol and embedded in paraffin. Consecutive 5 µm-thick
sections cut perpendicular to the tunnel axis and the intra-articular portion of the graft were
stained with H&E and Masson’s trichrome stain. Histological analysis (50X and 200X
magnification) of the bone–graft interface was performed using three sections from each
specimen to assess fibrocartilage formation, new bone formation, graft bonding to adjacent
tissue, and cell penetration depth and number of cells within the graft. Two reviewers
blinded to the group assignments scored each characteristic according to a previously
published scoring system.33
Statistical Methods
For non-parametric data, the Mann-Whitney U Test was used for analysis. For in
vitro experiments (MTS, neutral red, DNA content, residual PAA) data were analyzed in
triplicate. All numerical data were averaged, a standard error of the mean (SEM) was
63
calculated, and a comparison was made between appropriate groups using a two-tailed,
Student’s t-test with unequal variances. Differences were considered significant at p<0.05.
Source of Funding
This study was supported by a research grant from AANA to PWW and GGP and
grants from OREF and ANNA to TMS, PWW and GGP. hFDATAs were supplied by
MTF™.
64
RESULTS
Histologic Analysis of hFDATAs and Scaffolds
Abundant nuclear material (DNA/RNA) was evident in longitudinal sections of
hFDATAs after H&E (Figure 2A) and DAPI staining (Figure 2B). Minimal inter-fascicular
and intra-fascicular space was present in the H&E-stained sections of hFDATAs prior to
processing (Figure 2A). After processing, no nuclear material was evident via H&E
staining of the scaffolds (Figure 2C). DAPI staining revealed no DNA or RNA within the
scaffolds (Figure 2D). After processing, a subjective increase in intra-fascicular and inter-
fascicular space was observed in the scaffolds via H&E staining (Figure 2C)
(magnification, 200 X).
DNA Content of hFDATAs and Scaffolds
Scaffold DNA content was significantly decreased by 67.33% (0.11 + 0.07 μg
DNA/mg tissue dry weight, n=10) after processing when compared to the untreated
hFDATAs (0.31 + 0.03 µg DNA/mg tissue dry weight, n=10), p=0.00003.
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) of hFDATAs and Scaffolds
SEM confirmed the dense micro-architecture observed in sections of the
hFDATAs, (Figure 3A), and the increase in pore size and porosity of the scaffolds, (Figure
3B) (magnification, 150 X).
Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry of hFDATAs and Scaffolds
Mean total porosity measured by intrusion porosimetry was 49.63% ± 0.57 for the
hFDATAs (n=3) and 87.50% ± 8.69 for the scaffolds (n=3), p = 0.008. While the scaffolds
had median pore size of 17.54 ± 3.73 μm, median pore size of the hFDATAs was 13.23 ±
3.20 μm, p=0.204. The scaffold mean pore size was 14.02 ± 3.06 μm, and the hFDATA
65
specimens was 9.99 ± 2.47 μm, p=0.151. Although there was a trend towards increased
pore size in the scaffolds, this difference was not significant.
Residual Peracetic Acid Analysis
The residual peracetic acid (PAA) concentration in the initial solution and the 24h
wash was greater than 50 ppm, the limit of detection of the test strips. PAA concentration
was 7.92 ± 1.89 ppm after the 48h wash and 0.42 ± 1.20 ppm after the 72h wash (n=10).
Only one scaffold (1/12, 8.5%) had residual PAA at the detectable limit (5.0 ppm) after the
fourth and final wash.
In Vitro Cyto-compatibility of Scaffolds
Direct Contact Method Metabolic activity determined using the MTS assay
(absorbance at λ=490 ηm) for NIH 3T3 cells exposed to the scaffolds was 93.71% (1.01
+/- 0.04, n=10) of that observed for cells exposed to media only (1.08 +/- 0.07, n=20,
positive control) and was not statistically significant, p=0.36, (Figure 4A). Cell viability
determined using the neutral red release/uptake assay (absorbance at λ=540 ηm) for NIH
3T3 cells exposed to the scaffolds was 102.13% (0.19 +/- 0.02, n=10) of that observed for
NIH 3T3 cells exposed to media alone (0.17 +/- 0.02, n=10), a difference which was not
statistically significant, p=0.60, (Figure 4B). The cells exposed to the scaffolds and the
positive control (cells exposed to culture media only) differed significantly from the values
obtained for the latex negative control (n=10) in both assays, p<0.0001. The absorbance
observed for the negative control was also <10% of the absorbance observed for positive
controls in each assay.
66
Assessment of Virus-inactivating Efficacy During Production of Scaffolds
The virus-inactivating efficacy of virus-spiked hFDATA’s (1.0x108 infectious
units) during scaffold production demonstrated complete inactivation of the enveloped
viruses VSV and SV5 after the first step, (Figure 5). For Adenovirus, infectious virus was
detected after the first step (~1X103 PFU), but no PFU could be detected after the second
step, (Figure 5). The limit of detection for the plaque assay is 2 PFU for Adenovirus and 5
PFU for SV5 and VSV. Data points indicate the total detectable virus at the time of initial
tissue “spike” and immediately following each step of the scaffold production process.
Tensile Testing of hFDATAs and Scaffolds
All specimens failed mid-substance and none were excluded from analysis. No
gross slippage or intermittent loss of load during elongation was observed during testing,
(Table 2). Ultimate tensile load at break (UTL) of the scaffolds was 100.30% (184.69 +
32.62 N, n=10) of that observed for the hFDATAs (184.14 + 24.36 N, n=10), p=0.99.
Stiffness was reduced in scaffolds to 72.63% (65.87 +/- 38.66 N/mm, n=10) of the value
observed for hFDATAs (90.69 +/- 11.13 N/mm, n=10), p=0.15. The ultimate tensile stress
at break (UTS) was 69.24% (20.40 +/- 3.69 MPa, n=10) of the hFDATAs (29.47 +/- 5.13
Mpa, n=10), p=0.17. The calculated elastic modulus (E) of the scaffolds was 59.30%
(166.34 + 36.09 MPa) of the hFDATAs (280.51 + 52.45 MPa), p=0.09. The percent
elongation at UTS (mm/mm*100) observed for the scaffolds was 138.47% (33.11 + 2.79%)
of that observed for the hFDATAs (23.91 + 1.57), a difference which was significant,
p=0.01.
67
Tensile Testing of Implanted hFDATAs and Scaffolds
None of the hFDATAs or scaffolds failed in vivo. Scaffold failure occurred in the
mid-substance (1/5), at the femoral (2/5), the tibial end (2/5) of the tendon. hFDATA failure
occurred at the femoral (3/5), and at the tibial end (2/5), (Table 3). Tensile testing of the
scaffolds determined the UTL was 116.16% (37.74 + 12.13 N, n=5) of that observed for
the hFDATAs (32.49 + 16.08 N, n=5), p=0.08. Scaffold stiffness was 105.24% (16.49 +
6.56 N/mm, n=5) of the value observed for hFDATAs (15.66 + 8.02 N/mm, n=5), p=0.94.
Scaffold UTS was 96.75% (9.90 + 3.12 MPa, n=5) of that observed for hFDATAs (10.23
+ 7.67 Mpa, n=5), p=0.96. Scaffold calculated elastic modulus (E) was 107.94% (26.08 +
8.56 MPa) of that observed for the hFDATAs (24.16 + 17.36 MPa), p=0.92. The percent
elongation at UTS (mm/mm*100) observed for the scaffolds was 120.03% (122.75 +
19.74%) of that observed for the hFDATAs (102.27 + 39.49%), a difference which was
not significant in contrast to the values observed in vitro, p=0.66.
Histology of Implanted of Scaffolds
No significant differences in the formation of new bone or fibrocartilage, or graft
bonding to adjacent tissue were observed between the scaffolds (n=3) and hFDATAs (n=3)
after implantation in vivo (Figure 6, Table 1). A significant increase in host cells infiltrating
the scaffold was observed (Figure 6C, 6D) when compared to hFDATAs (Figure 6A, 6B),
p=0.002. A significant increase in the host cell penetration depth within scaffolds (Figure
6C, 6D) was observed compared to hFDATAs (Figure 6A, 6B) after implantation, p=0.002.
68
DISCUSSION
The maintenance of necessary tensile properties, elimination of potential sources
of disease transmission and optimization of ultra-structural architecture to accelerate graft
remodeling are critical elements of musculoskeletal scaffold design. This study confirmed
that human allograft tissue can be processed to remove infectious viral material to produce
a decellularized, architecturally-modified, cyto-compatible scaffold that promotes cell
infiltration in vivo, yet retains tensile properties similar to hFDATA in vitro or in vivo.
Use of allograft tissue has the potential for disease transmission from contaminated tissue.34
Guelich et al reported a positive bacterial culture rate of 9.7% (24 of 247 allografts) in their
retrospective review of 35 ACL reconstruction patients who underwent ACL allograft
reconstruction.35 Similarly, Diaz-de-Rada et al. found positive bacterial cultures in
13.25% (24 of 181 allografts) of their allograft tissues.36 While the high rate of positive
bacterial cultures is concerning, it may not translate into equivalent rates of clinical
infections. Few cases of septic arthritis where cultures grew the same organism as the pre-
implantation cultures are reported.37,38 The most concerning scenario involves the
distribution of human allograft tissue deemed safe as a result of laboratory error or
incomplete testing. Such tissue potentially could transmit fatal diseases (Hepatitis B/C or
HIV) to allograft recipients with devastating consequences.39 Although the literature
confirms that this risk is low, the confirmed cases not only represent a major
medical/surgical challenge and pose serious medical-legal and ethical issues. The oxidative
elimination of infectious viral material in this study resulted in a level of viral sterility that
surpassed that of current industry standards.3 Further studies are planned to validate the
effect of scaffold production on bacterial and fungal sterility.
69
Scheffler et al. compared the remodeling process and restoration of mechanical
function of a free soft tissue autograft and an identical allograft in an in vivo sheep model.40
The authors found a significant delay in remodeling and decreased tensile properties for
the allograft group compared to the autograft group. They speculated that delayed
remodeling resulted from differences in the extracellular and collagenous matrix and
immunogenic responses to the allograft tissue. Others have noted similar findings in
allografts. 3,4,17-19 In our experiments, a significant decrease in residual cellular material was
observed in processed scaffolds, minimizing the immunogenic and inflammatory response
to scaffold implantation. The observed increase in total porosity in conjunction with the
removal of cellular material from the original allograft, resulting from the combined
oxidative-decellularization solution using PAA and Triton X-100™, was associated with
early and increased host cell infiltration into the implanted scaffold. Infiltration of cells
may promote earlier repopulation, remodeling, and scaffold integration compared to
traditional allograft tissue. At harvest, the scaffolds appeared to be in the early maturation
phase of healing with increased cell infiltration and possibly a shorter necrotic phase than
the hFDATA as would be expected after decellularization and oxidation.8 Clinically, this
finding may translate into accelerated rehabilitation and earlier return to activity or sport.
However, further studies are necessary to prove this.
Peracetic acid (PAA) has been successfully used to sterilize human patellar tendon
allografts without impacting their mechanical properties.41 Scheffler and coworkers
analyzed the remodeling of PAA-sterilized ovine ACL allografts and found that PAA
slowed the remodeling process and impacted mechanical properties at 6 and 12 weeks
compared to nonsterilized allografts and autografts.42 In contrast, we did not detect residual
70
PAA, nor did the use of PAA in our decellularization protocol significantly decrease the
scaffold’s tensile properties either in vitro or in vivo, render the scaffolds cytotoxic, or
provoke an inflammatory response in vitro. The significant increase in the percent-
elongation at UTS observed in the scaffolds in vitro is expected. The oxidative and
enzymatic disruption of the hFDATA necessary to increase porosity and remove infectious
particles and donor cellular material during scaffold production.20 It is likely a consequence
of the disruption of covalent and non-covalent interactions within the scaffold leading to
decreased resistance to deformation.
Limitations of the current study include the use of a single allograft tendon type,
hFDATA. However, other types of tissues have responded favorably to the same
decellularization protocol.43 Furthermore, freeze-dried allografts are an excellent source
material because they possess equivalent tensile properties prior to and after implantation
in vivo, they incorporate similarly to fresh-frozen allografts, are less immunogenic than
fresh or fresh-frozen grafts, and are not associated with disease transmission in recipients,
even when such grafts came from an infected donor. However, fresh-frozen and fresh grafts
from those same donors did result in disease transmissions in recipients.44 Another
limitation is the time period that implanted scaffolds were studied. Further longitudinal in
vivo studies are necessary to determine the behavior of implanted scaffolds, with an
additional comparison to autograft tendon, at time points greater than 12 weeks in order to
investigate the long-term clinical results of allograft-derived scaffolds. Similarly, tissue
processing protocols may require optimization to influence scaffold behavior for time
points over 12 weeks. Although this process may increase the number of usable donor
allografts, there is still a limited supply of donors.
71
The tensile properties determined for the hFDATAs and the scaffolds in the in vitro
and in vivo portions of the study were performed using established testing parameters for
both analyses that allow direct comparison of the scaffolds and the hFDATAs in vitro or
in vivo with equivalent error.25-32 However, overall dimensions and fixation of each
analysis, particularly the complexity of the in vivo portion, make a direct comparison of in
vitro to in vivo tensile and material properties inappropriate. As such, no comparison should
be made between the in vitro and in vivo groups with respect to these specific properties.
Similarly, the small specimens used in this study for tensile testing represent only a small
portion of a hFDATA lacking an intact paratenon. Therefore, tensile and material
properties cannot be directly compared to prior results for hFDATA and other common
grafts used for ACL reconstruction. The tensile properties of grafts from human donors
were variable and unpredictable as previously described (mean ultimate tensile strength
(UTS) of the human Achilles tendon is 1189 N (range = 360-1,965)), making statistical
analysis challenging for even large (>100) sample numbers.45 Therefore, a source of
musculoskeletal tissue with more homogenous tensile properties and greater availability,
such as xenograft tissue, may prove valuable.
In summary, this study supported the hypothesis that human allograft tissue can be
processed to remove infectious material to produce a decellularized, cyto-compatible,
architecturally-modified scaffold with tensile properties similar to human allograft tissue
in vitro and in vivo. The process also succeeded in removing inflammatory and infectious
material from hFDATA’s and resulted in an increased porosity of the hFDATA-derived
scaffolds that subsequently led to increased cell infiltration in vivo.
72
REFERENCES
1. Spindler KP, Wright, RW. Anterior cruciate ligament tear. N Engl J Med
2008;359:2135-42.
2. The American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Conference on Allografts in
Orthopaedic Sports Medicine. Keystone (CO), July 14–17, 2005.
3. Cohen, SB, Sekiya, JK. Allograft Safety in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Clin Sports Med 2007;26:597–605.
4. Jackson DW, Grood ES, Goldstein JD, et al. A comparison of patellar tendon autograft
and allograft used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the goat model. Am J
Sports Med 1993;21(2):176–85.
5. Kleiner JB, Amiel D, Roux RD, et al. Origin of replacement cells for the anterior cruciate
ligament autograft. J Orthop Res 1986;4(4):466–74.
6. Arnoczky SP. Biology of ACL reconstructions: what happens to the graft? Instr Course
Lect 1996;45:229–33.
7. Arnoczky SP, Tarvin GB, Marshall JL. Anterior cruciate ligament replacement using
patellar tendon. An evaluation of graft revascularization in the dog. J Bone Joint Surg Am
1982;64(2):217–24.
8. Gulotta, LV, Rodeo, SA. Biology of Autograft and Allograft Healing in Anterior
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Clin Sports Med 2007;26:509–524.
9. Durselen L, Claes L, Ignatius A, Rubenacker, S. Comparative animal study of three
ligament prostheses for the replacement of the anterior cruciate and medial collateral
ligament. Biomaterials 1996;17:977–82.
73
10. Muren O, Dahlstedt L, Brosjo E, Dahlborn M, Dalen N. Gross osteolytic tibia tunnel
widening with the use of Gore-Tex anterior cruciate ligament prosthesis: a radiological,
arthrometric and clinical evaluation of 17 patients 13–15 years after surgery. Acta Orthop
2005;76:270–423.
11. Roolker W, Patt TW, van Dijk CN, Vegter M, Marti RK. The Gore-Tex prosthetic
ligament as a salvage procedure in deficient knees. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
2000;8:20–527.
12. Petrigliano FA, McAllister DR, Wu BM. Tissue Engineering for Anterior Cruciate
Ligament Reconstruction: A Review of Current Strategies. Arthroscopy 2006;22(4):441-
451.
13. Ge Z, Yang F, Goh JCH, Ramakrishna S, Lee EH. Biomaterials and scaffolds for
ligament tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res 2006;77A: 639–652.
14. Derwin KA, Baker AR, Spragg RK, Leigh DR, Iannotti JP. Commercial extracellular
matrix scaffolds for rotator cuff tendon repair: Biomechanical, biochemical and cellular
properties. J. Bone Joint Surg 2006;88(12):2665-2672.
15. Tischer T, Vogt S, Aryee S, Steinhauser E, Adamczyk C, Martinek V, Milz S, Imhoff
AB. Tissue engineering of anterior cruciate ligament: a new method using acellular tendon
allografts and autogenous fibroblasts. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2007;127:735-741.
16. Tischer T, Aryee S, Wexel G, Steinhauser E, Adamczyk C, Eichhorn S, Milz S,
Martinek V, Gänsbacher B, Imhoff AB, Vogt S. Tissue engineering of the anterior cruciate
ligament-sodium dodecyl sulfate-acellularized and revitalized tendons are inferior to native
tendons. Tissue Eng Part A. 2010;16(3):1031-40.
74
17. Iannotti JP, Codsi MJ, Kwon YW, Derwin K, Ciccone J, Brems JJ. Porcine small
intestine submucosa augmentation of surgical repair of chronic two-tendon rotator cuff
tears. A randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(6):1238-44.
18. Walton JR, Bowman NK, Khatib Y, Linklater J, Murrell GA. Restore orthobiologic
implant: not recommended for augmentation of rotator cuff repairs. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2007;89(4):786-91.
19. Snyder SJ, Arnoczky SP, Bond JL, Dopirak R. Histologic evaluation of a biopsy
specimen obtained 3 months after rotator cuff augmentation with GraftJacket Matrix.
Arthroscopy. 2009;25(3):329-33.
20. Whitlock PW, Smith TL, Poehling GG, Shilt JS, Van Dyke ME. A naturally derived,
cytocompatible, and architecturally optimized scaffold for tendon and ligament
regeneration. Biomaterials 2007;28:4321-4329.
21. Cole DW, Ginn TA, Chen GJ, Smith BP, Curl WW, Martin DF, Poehling GG. Cost
comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: autograft versus allograft.
Arthroscopy 2005;21:786–90
22. Poehling GG, Curl WW, Lee CA, Ginn TA, Rushing JT, Naughton MJ, Holden MB,
Martin DF, Smith BP. Analysis of outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament repair with 5-
year follow-up: allograft versus autograft. Arthroscopy 2005;21:774–85.
23. Pariente JL, Kim BS, Atala A. In vitro biocompatibility assessment of naturally derived
and synthetic biomaterials using normal human urothelial cells. J Biomed Mater Res
2001;55:33–9.
24. (a) ISO10993-5: Biological evaluation of medical devices. Test for cytotoxicity: in
vitro methods. Geneva: Switzerland; (b) Annual book of American Society for Testing and
75
Materials standards: F748: Practice for selecting generic biological test methods for
materials and devices. F813; Standard practice for direct contact cell culture evaluation of
materials for medical devices. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and
Materials; 1991.
25. Mow VC, Flatow EL, Ateshain GA. Chapter 5 Biomechanics and Woo SLY, Kai-Nan
A, Frank CB, Livesay GA, Ma CB, Zeminski J, Wayne JS, Myers BS. Chapter 24
Anatomy, Biology, and Biomechanics of Tendon and Ligament. In: Orthopaedic basic
science. Biology of the musculoskeletal system. Chicago: American Academy
of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2000. p. 133–80 and p. 581–616.
26. Woo SLY, Abramowitch SD, Kilger R, Liang R. Biomechanics of knee ligaments:
injury, healing, and repair. J Biomech 2006;39:1–20. [21] Fung YC. Biomechanics:
mechanical properties of living tissues. New York: Springer; 1993.
27. Lee TQ, Woo SLY. A new method for determining cross-sectional shape and area of
soft tissues. J Biomech Eng 1988;110(2):110–4.
28. Peterson RH, Woo SLY. A new methodology to determine the mechanical properties
of ligaments at high strain rates. J Biomech Eng 1986;108(4):365–7.
29. Peterson RH, Gomez MA, Woo SLY. The effects of strain rate on the biomechanical
properties of the medial collateral ligament: a study of immature and mature rabbits. In:
Proceedings of the Transactions of the Orthopaedic Research Society. Chicago:
Orthopaedic Research Society; 1987.
30. Woo SLY, Ohland KJ, McMahon PJ. Biology, healing and repair of ligaments. In:
Finerman GAH, Noyes FR, editors. Biology and biomechanics of the traumatized synovial
76
joint: the knee as a model. Chicago: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1992.
p. 241–73.
31. Grana WA, Egle DM, Mahnken R, Goodhart CW. An analysis of autograft fixation
after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a rabbit model. Am J Sports Med. 1994
May-Jun;22(3):344-51.
32. Danto MI, Woo SL. The mechanical properties of skeletally mature rabbit anterior
cruciate ligament and patellar tendon over a range of strain rates. J Orthop Res. 1993
Jan;11(1):58-67.
33. Yeh WL, Lin SS, Yuan LJ, Lee KF, Lee MY, Ueng SW. Effects of hyperbaric oxygen
treatment on tendon graft and tendon-bone integration in bone tunnel: biochemical and
histological analysis in rabbits. J Orthop Res. 2007 May;25(5):636-45.
34. Vangsness CT, Wagner PP, Moore TM, Roberts MR. Overview of safety issues
concerning the preparation and processing of soft-tissue allografts. Arthroscopy. 2006
Dec:22(12):1351-1358.
35. Guelich DR, Lowe WR, Wilson B. The routine culture of allograft tissue in anterior
cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:1495-1499.
36. Diaz-de-Rada P, Barriga A, Barroso J, et al. Positive culture in allograft ACL-
reconstruction: what to do? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2003;11:219-222.
37. Crawford C, Kainer M, Jernigan D, et al. Investigation of postoperative allograft-
associated infections in patients who underwent musculoskeletal allograft implantation.
Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:195-200.
38. Lee EH, Ferguson D, Jernigan D, et al. Invasive group-a streptococcal infection in an
allograft recipient. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2044-2047
77
39. Tugwell BD, Patel PR, Williams IT, Hedberg IT, Hedberg K, Chai F, Nainan OV,
Thomas AR, Woll JE, Bell BP, Cieslak PR. Transmission of hepatitis C virus to several
organ and tissue recipients from an antibody-negative donor. Ann Intern Med. 143(9):648-
654.
40. Scheffler SU, Schmidt T, Gangéy I, Dustmann M, Unterhauser F, Weiler A. Fresh-
frozen free-tendon allografts versus autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction:
delayed remodeling and inferior mechanical function during long-term healing in sheep.
Arthroscopy. 2008 Apr;24(4):448-58.
41. Lomas RJ, Jennings LM, Fisher J, Kearney JN. Effects of a peracetic acid disinfection
protocol on the biocompatibility and biomechanical properties of human patellar tendon
allografts. Cell Tissue Bank. 2004;5(3):149-60.
42. Scheffler SU, Gonnermann J, Kamp J, Przybilla D, Pruss A. Remodeling of ACL
allografts is inhibited by peracetic acid sterilization. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008
Aug;466(8):1810-8.
43. Stabile KJ, Odom D, Smith TL, Northam C, Whitlock PW, Smith BP, Van Dyke ME,
Ferguson CM. An acellular, allograft-derived meniscus scaffold in an ovine model.
Arthroscopy. 2010 Jul;26(7):936-48.
44. Mahirogullari M, Ferguson CM, Whitlock PW, Stabile KJ, Poehling GG. Freeze-dried
allografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Sports Med. 2007;26:625-637.
45. Louis-Ugbo J, Leeson B, Hutto WC. Tensile properties of fresh human calcaneal
(Achilles) tendons. Clinical Anatomy. 2004;17(1):30-35.
78
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Experimental flowchart detailing the total number of human Freeze-Dried
Achilles Tendon Allografts (hFDATAs) used and their subsequent processing and
analysis.
79
Figure 2. Histologic Analysis of hFDATA’s and hFDATA-derived Scaffolds. A) H&E-stained longitudinal section of hFDATA; B) DAPI-stained longitudinal section of hFDATA; C) H&E-stained section of scaffold; D) DAPI-stained section of scaffold. Panels A,C at 50X magnification. Panels B,D at 200X magnification.
80
Figure 3. Scanning Electron Microscopy of hFDATA’s and hFDATA-derived Scaffolds. A) Cross-section of hFDATA; B) Cross-section of scaffold. 150X magnification.
81
Figure 4. In Vitro Cyto-compatibility of hFDATA-derived Scaffolds: Direct Contact Method. A) Metabolic activity of cells exposed to scaffold and positive control (media alone). B) Cell viability of cells exposed to scaffold and positive control (media alone). Data expressed as mean + SEM.
82
Figure 5. Assessment of Virus-inactivating Efficacy During Production of FDATA-derived Scaffolds. Data expressed as mean + SEM.
83
Figure 6. Histology of Implanted of hFDATA-derived Scaffolds at 12 Weeks. A) hFDATA 50x. B) hFDATA 200x. C) Scaffold 50x. D) Scaffold 200x. Cross-section centered on the graft tunnel with the surrounding graft-tunnel interface at the periphery of the frame, distal femur, Masson’s Trichrome stain.
84
Table 1. Scoring Results for Histological Analysis of Implanted Scaffolds and hFDATA’s after 12 weeks. Data expressed as mean, (range).
Table 1. Scoring Results for Histological Analysis of Implanted Scaffolds and hFDATA’s after 12 weeks.
Scaffold hFDATAs p-value
Fibrocartilage formation (0-3) 2.7 (2-3) 2 (1-3) 0.145 New bone formation (0-3) 2.5 (2-3) 1.7 (1-3) 0.18 Tendon graft bonding to adjacent tissue (0-3) 3 (3-3) 2.5 (2-3) 0.18 Cell penetration depth (0-3) 2.3 (1-3) 0 (0-0) 0.002 Cells within graft (0-3) 2.7 (2-3) 1 (1-1) 0.002
Maximum Score (15) 13.2 (10-15) 7.2 (5-10) 0.001
85
Table 2. Tensile Testing of hFDATA’s and hFDATA-derived Scaffolds: The ultimate tensile load at break (UTL, N), stiffness (N/mm), ultimate tensile stress at break (UTS, MPa), elastic modulus (E, MPa) % elongation at UTS (mm/mm*100) observed for the scaffolds (n=10) were 100.30% (p=0.99), 72.63% (p=0.15), 69.24% (p=0.17), 59.30% (p=0.09) and 138.47% (P=0.01) of the values observed for the hFDTAs (Mean + SEM, Student’s two-tailed t-test, equal variances).
Table 2. Tensile Properties In vitro Property hFDATA Scaffold % hFDATA p-value
UTL + SEM [N] 184.14 + 24.36 184.69 + 32.62 100.3 0.99
Stiffness + SEM [N/mm] 90.69 + 11.13 65.87 + 38.66 72.63 0.15
UTS + SEM [Mpa] 29.47 + 5.13 20.40 + 3.69 69.24 0.17
Elastic Modulus + SEM [Mpa] 280.51 + 52.45 166.34 + 36.09 59.3 0.09 % Elongation at UTS + SEM [mm/mm*100] 23.91 + 1.57 33.11 + 2.79 138.47 0.01
86
Table 3. Tensile testing of Implanted hFDATA’s and hFDATA-derived Scaffolds at 12 Weeks. The ultimate tensile load at break (UTL, N), stiffness (N/mm), ultimate tensile stress at break (UTS, MPa), elastic modulus (E, MPa) % elongation at UTS (mm/mm*100) observed for the scaffolds (n=10) were 116.16% (p=0.08), 105.24% (p=0.94), 96.75% (p=0.96), 107.94% (p=0.92) and 120.03% (P=0.66) of the values observed for the hFDTAs (Data expressed as mean + SEM, % of hFDATA. Student’s two-tailed t-test, equal variances).
Table 3. Tensile Properties In vivo Property hFDATA Scaffold % hFDATA p-value
UTL + SEM [N] 32.49 + 16.08 37.74 + 12.13 116.16 0.08 Stiffness + SEM [N/mm] 15.66 + 8.02 16.49 + 6.56 105.24 0.94
UTS + SEM [Mpa] 10.23 + 7.67 9.90 + 3.12 96.75 0.96
Elastic Modulus + SEM [Mpa] 24.16 + 17.36 26.08 + 8.56 107.94 0.92 % Elongation at UTS + SEM [mm/mm*100] 102.27 + 39.49 122.75 + 19.74 120.03 0.66
87
CHAPTER 4
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A XENOGRAFT-DERIVED SCAFFOLD FOR
TENDON AND LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION
Thorsten M. Seyler, M.D.1,2; Daniel N. Bracey, M.D.1,2; Johannes F. Plate, M.D.1,3; Mark
O. Lively, Ph.D.2,4; Sandeep Mannava, M.D., Ph.D.1,3; Thomas L. Smith, Ph.D.1,2,5;
Justin M. Saul, Ph.D.6; Mark E. Van Dyke, Ph.D.1,5; Patrick W. Whitlock, M.D., Ph.D.1,7
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem,
North Carolina
2Molecular Medicine and Translational Science Graduate Program, Wake Forest
University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, Winston Salem, North Carolina
3Neuroscience Graduate Program, Wake Forest University Graduate School of Arts &
Sciences, Winston Salem, North Carolina
4Department of Biochemistry, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston Salem, North
Carolina
5Virginia Tech-Wake Forest University, School of Biomedical Engineering and
Sciences, Blacksburg, Virginia
6Department of Chemical, Paper and Biomedical Engineering, Miami University,
Oxford, Ohio
7Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles,
California
88
The following manuscript was submitted for publication to the Arthroscopy: The Journal
of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. This chapter is currently under review. Stylistic
variations are due to the requirements of the journal. Thorsten M. Seyler made substantial
contributions to the conception of the work and all experiments. Participated in the
acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for all experiments. Drafting the work and
revising it critically for important intellectual content including final approval of the
version to be published. He is accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that
questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately
investigated and resolved. He also served as corresponding author.
89
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Xenografts are highly attractive graft choices as they are abundantly available.
However, to make xenotransplantation a clinical reality, it is necessary to remove xenograft
antigens associated with xenograft rejection. This work reports on the development of a
decellularized xenograft-based scaffold suitable for tendon and ligament reconstruction.
Methods: Porcine patellar tendons were processed using a novel decellularization and
oxidation protocol that combines physical, chemical, and enzymatic modalities.
Results: A decrease in cellularity based on histology and a significant decrease in DNA
content were observed in the scaffolds compared with the native tendon (p<0.001).
Porosity and pore size was increased significantly (p<0.001); SEM images confirmed the
increase in scaffold pore size and porosity. In vitro cytocompatibility of scaffolds by direct
contact methods demonstrated that viability for cells exposed to the scaffolds and for the
negative controls was not statistically significant. The α-gal xenoantigen level was
significantly lower in the decellularized scaffold group compared to fresh-frozen, non-
decellularized tissue (p<0.001). The relative degree of antigen removal and immunological
response was determined through measuring the pro-inflammatory cytokines, tumor
necrosis factor (TNF)-α and Interleukin-6 (IL-6). TNF-α and IL-6 levels were significantly
(p<0.001) reduced compared with untreated controls when human acute monocytic
leukemia cells were exposed to scaffold, native tendon, and after LPS stimulation. These
results were confirmed by an attenuated response to scaffolds in vivo after implantation in
a non-human primate model.
90
Conclusions: These results provide evidence that a novel decellularization and oxidation
process can effectively remove cells, lipids, and other sources of antigenic material such
as the α-gal xenoantigen while preserving the three-dimensional structure.
Clinical relevance: The use of this novel decellularization and oxidation process favorably
modifies tendon microarchitecture and aid in the removal xenoantigens. Process can be
combined with other modalities to further facilitate xenoantigen removal.
Key words: ligament, tendon, xenograft, tissue engineering, scaffold, alpha-gal
91
INTRODUCTION
Allograft tissue is commonly used in musculoskeletal surgical procedures, and its
popularity has grown rapidly, exceeding the use of autograft tissue in many countries.
Despite improvements in safety standards for allograft tissue donation, procurement,
testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution, the risk of disease and
malignancy transmission via transplantation of allograft tissues cannot be completely
excluded and such an event may cause a potentially life-threateningcomplication.(1-3)
Project NOTIFY was launched in 2010 by the World Health Organization (WHO) and
signifies an effort to improve recognition, reporting, tracking and investigation of adverse
outcomes associated with the use of allograft tissues.(1) The preliminary report on the work
of Project NOTIFY documented cases of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV, n = 12), hepatitis C virus (HCV, n = 10), human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV, n =
1), unspecified hepatitis (n = 1), tuberculosis and other bacteria (n = 49). Concomitantly,
Varettas reported the results of swab and tissue samples received for bioburden testing of
cadaveric allograft tissue samples at the time of tissue retrieval and found bacterial or
fungal growth from 29.1 % of samples.(4)
One approach to eliminate the risk of disease transmission and address allograft
shortage is xenotransplantation, the transplantationof non-human animal tissues into a
human recipient.(5, 6) Perhaps the most intriguing advantage of xenotransplantation is the
infinite amount of xenograft tissue available. This availability has been the basis for the
rapidly developing xenograft market with porcine- and bovine-derived grafts being the
most relevant xenograft tissues for orthopaedic procedures due to similarities in size and
biomechanical properties.(7) However, the immune differences in cross-species
92
transplantation can induce a rejection of animal tissues by humans. Many studies have
shown that xenogeneic tissues express superficial epitopes such as the α-gal epitope
(Galα1-3Galβ1-4GlcNAc-R), responsible for triggering this tissue rejection. The α-gal
epitope interactswith thehuman natural anti-Gal antibody and causes a complement-
mediated as well as a direct T cell-mediated immune response, making α-gal a major
obstacle to the clinical use of xenotransplanted scaffolds.(8, 9) Careful breeding of animals
free of specific pathogens may make xenotransplantation safer in some respects than
human allotransplant donors; however, the potential transmission of pathogens (viral
infection, prion-mediated infection, and bacterial infection) from the xenograft donor to
the human recipient exists.(5, 6)
Issues of acceptable and sufficient graft material are a particular challenge for
traumatic injuries to the musculoskeletal system and complex reconstructions in
musculoskeletal oncology.(10, 11) A readily available animal source for
xenotranplantation and the addition of cells to these xenograft tissues may represent a more
effective approach to the treatment these injuries than traditional methods. Thus,
approaches to produce decellularized xenografts have potential benefits both now and in
the future.
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the biologic, immunological, and
biomechanical properties of a scaffold derived by architectural modification of fresh-frozen
porcine patella tendon using a decellularization protocol that combines physical, chemical
and enzymatic modalities. We hypothesized that porcine xenograft tendon could be
processed to produce a decellularized, cytocompatible, xenoantigen-depleted, and
94
MATERIAL & METHODS
1.1. Preparation of Xenograft-derived Scaffolds
Porcine xenograft-derived scaffolds were prepared using a novel decellularization
protocol that was previously developed in our laboratory.(12, 13) All fresh-frozen native
porcine tendons were obtained through a single vendor (Animal Technologies, Tyler, TX)
Four native porcine patella tendons were placed into a clean, autoclaved, 1000 ml
PYREX® wide mouth round media storage bottle (Corning, Tewksbury, MA). One liter
of DNase-free/RNase-free, distilled water was added to each bottle. The bottle was placed
onto a rotating shaker (Barnstead MaxQ400, Dubuque, IA) at 160 r.p.m. at 37°C, for 12
hours. After 12 hours, the water was discarded, and the cycle was repeated. At the
conclusion of the second cycle, the water was discarded and 500ml of 0.05% trypsin
(Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO), 4.0 mM sodium bicarbonate (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis,
MO), and 0.5 mM tetrasodium EDTA (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO), prepared in Hank's
balanced salt solution (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO) was added. The sample was placed
onto the rotating shaker at 160 r.p.m. at 37°C for 1 hour. At the end of the cycle, the trypsin
solution was discarded and 1 liter Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (Gibco® DMEM,
Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (Valley
Labs, Winchester, VA) and antibiotic and antimycotic solution containing 10,000 units/ml
penicillin G, 10 mg/ml streptomycin sulfate and 25 μg/ml amphotericin B (Sigma Aldrich,
St Louis, MO) was added in order to halt trypsin digestion of the samples. The sample was
placed back onto the rotary shaker at 160 r.p.m., 37°C, for 24 hours. After 24 hours, the
DMEM–FBS solution was discarded. One liter of the DNase-free/RNase-free distilled
water was added; the sample was placed onto the rotary shaker at 160 r.p.m. at 37°C for
12 hours. After 12 hours, the water was discarded and the cycle was repeated. At the
95
conclusion of the second cycle, the water wash was discarded and 1 liter of 1.5% peracetic
acid (PAA; oxidant; Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO) solution with 2.0% Triton X-100
(detergent; Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO) in distilled, deionized water (diH2O) was added;
the sample was placed onto the rotary shaker at 160 r.p.m. at 37°C for 2 hours. After 2
hours, the solution was discarded, and three 1 liter washes with diH2O were performed,
each for 12 hours at 37°C and 160 r.p.m. on the rotary shaker. At the end of the third wash,
the samples were removed and placed individually into clean, sterile 50 ml conical tubes
and frozen for 24 hours at −80°C. The product, referred to as scaffold, was freeze-dried
(Labconco, Freeze Dry System, Kansas City, MO) for 24 hours before being returned to
the freezer and stored at −80°C until further use.
1.2. Histological Analysis
Mid-substance portions of the fresh-frozen porcine patella tendons and scaffolds
were placed in 10% phosphate-buffered formalin at room temperature for 4 hours. The
tendons then were processed for histology, embedded in paraffin, and sectioned on a
microtome to obtain 5.0 μm thick, longitudinal sections. Sections were mounted on slides
and stained using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E; Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO), three color
trichrome (Masson’s trichrome stain, Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO), and 4,6-diamidino-2-
phenylindole (DAPI; Vector, Burlingame, CA) to identify cellular and nuclear
components, respectively. Representative light (H&E, Masson’s trichrome) and
fluorescence (DAPI) micrographs were taken (Zeiss Axioplan 2, Carl Zeiss, Jena,
Germany).
1.3. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Analysis
Scanning electron microscopy was performed on native porcine patella tendons and
decellularized/oxidized scaffolds. Specimens were removed from storage at −80°C,
96
equilibrated in DNase-free/RNase-free water at 37°C for 30 minutes, patted dry and fixed
in 2.5% SEM-grade glutaraldehyde diluted in phosphate buffered saline for 2 hours. After
fixation, specimens were rinsed in running diH2O for 30 minutes, followed by dehydration
using graded ethanol solutions (50%, 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%, and 100% for 20 minutes
each). Specimens were then transferred in 100% ethanol solution to a CO2 critical-point
dryer. After drying, specimens were mounted onto an SEM stand and gold sputter coated.
Cross-sectional electron-micrographs were obtained at 25.0 kV, 50 Pa, 50× magnification
using a Phillips 515 SEM with backscatter, cathodoluminescence, and EDAX detectors
(Phillips, Eindhoven, Netherlands).
1.4. Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry
Sections of both native porcine patella tendon (n=11) and scaffold (n=12) were
weighed and placed in a porosimeter (AutoPore IV 9500, Micromeritics, Norcross, GA),
which was evacuated and filled with mercury (evacuation pressure 50 μmHg, evacuation
time 5 mins, mercury filling pressure 0.51 psia. The porosimeter was transferred into a high
pressure chamber [33,000 psi] and the intruded volume was recorded. The volume of
intruded mercury per gram of sample was assumed to be equal to the pore volume. The
percent porosity was calculated as (1- envelope density/skeletal density) x 100.
1.5. Detection and Identification of Proteins with Mass spectrometry
The identities of proteins within the tendon scaffolds were analyzed by using mass
spectrometry (MS). Freezer-milled scaffold samples (n=3) were reduced with dithiothreitol
and alkylated with iodoacetamide before overnight digestion with trypsin at pH 8 (Trypsin
Gold, Promega, Madison, WI). Aliquots were submitted for MS (Proteomics Laboratory -
David H. Murdock Research Institute, Kannapolis, NC; www.dhmri.org). Mass
spectrometry analysis was performed by using an electrospray ionization (ESI) ion trap
97
LTQ Orbitrap XL hybrid FTMS (Fourier Transform Mass Spectrometer; Thermo Fisher
Scientific, Waltham, MA) coupled to a nanoACQUITY UltraPerformance LC (UPLC)
system (Waters, Milford, MA). The Mascot version 2.2.07 (Matrix Science, Boston, MA)
search engine was used to search the protein databases (Swiss Prot 2012_06 and National
Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) NCBInr 20120627 with the following
settings: MS/MS ion search, taxonomy filter = Sus scrofa (pig) all entries,
enzyme = missed cleavages = 1, fixed modifications = carbamidomethyl (C), variable
modifications = oxidation of Met and Pro (to detect hydroxyl proline in collagens), peptide
mass tolerance = 1.2 Da, fragment mass tolerance = 0.6 Da, mass values = monoisotopic,
protein mass = unrestricted, instrument type = ESI-FTICR, decoy database also
searched = 1, significance threshold = 0.05, maximum number of hits = 0, use MudPIT
protein scoring = 1, ions score cut-off = 0, include same-set proteins = 1, include sub-set
proteins = 0, include unassigned = 0, and require bold red = 1. MS hits with ≥1000 protein
scores were reported.
1.6. Tensile Testing
Fresh-frozen native porcine patellar tendons (n=18) and scaffolds (n=18) were
removed from storage at −80°C and allowed to equilibrate in sterile DPBS at 37°C for
30 min. Tendons and scaffolds then were cut into “dogbone” specimens using a custom
made punch (Style L5134, Freeman, Fremont, OH) and placed into an uniaxial load frame
(Instron 5544, Needham, MA) for tensile testing. Specimens were pre-loaded to 0.1 N, and
then pre-conditioned 10 times to 0.1 mm extension prior to being loaded to failure at a rate
of 10 mm/min (strain rate of 1.11%/s). Ultimate tensile stress (UTS, MPa) at break was
calculated as the maximal load recorded during each test. The percent strain at UTS was
calculated using the displacement data recorded by the instrument and the initial length of
98
the specimen. Elastic modulus (E, MPa) and stiffness (N/mm) were calculated from the
linear portion of stress–strain curves generated from the load and displacement data
obtained from the load frame.
1.7. Analysis of Residual Peracetic Acid
Colorimetric PAA test strips (Sensitivity/range 0-85 parts per million, LaMotte
Company, Chestertown, MD) were used for the selective determination of PAA traces in
the initial processing solution and after successive rinsing processes at 2, 12, 24, and 36
hours (n = 6). Samples were analyzed in triplicates. Residual PAA levels was expressed in
parts per million.
1.8. DNA Content
Mid-substance sections of both native porcine patella tendon (n=8) and scaffold
(n=8) were pulverized using a Freezer/Mill® (SPEX Sample Prep, Metuchen, NJ).
Twenty-five mg of tissue was placed in sterile 1.5-mL microcentrifuge tubes. Total DNA
was isolated from each sample using a DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit (Qiagen, Valencia,CA)
and analyzed in triplicates. The total DNA content was calculated from the absorption at
280 nm using a spectrophotometer (Spectronic; Thermo Scientific) and normalized to the
initial dry weight of the sample.
1.9. Measurement of α-gal Epitope Levels
To determine the immunogenic potential of the xenograft scaffolds, α-gal epitope
expression on porcine patellar tendon scaffolds and native porcine patellar tendons was
assessed by using a competition ELISA.(14, 15) This assay measures the level of α-gal
expression in tissues by using the monoclonal anti-Gal M86 antibody (Axxora, Enzo Life
Sciences Company, Farmingdale, NY) and assesses the activity of free M86 remaining in
the supernatant. Porcine scaffolds and native porcine tendons were freezer-milled and
99
homogenized in Dulbecco’s phosphate buffered saline (DPBS, Gibco® DMEM, Life
Technologies, Grand Island, NY) and brought to a concentration of 200 mg/mL. This
starting concentration was subjected to two-fold serial dilutions and an equal volume of
monoclonal anti-Gal M86 antibody diluted 1:50 was added to each tube yielding a final
dilution of 1:100 of anti-Gal M86 antibody. The tubes containing the homogenized
tendons (n=10) or scaffolds (n=10) and monoclonal antibody were incubated overnight at
4°C with constant agitation. During incubation, the M86 antibody bound to the α-gal
epitopes on the homogenized tissues and the extent of binding was proportional to the
number of epitopes present in the tissues. Subsequently, tissues and cell-bound antibody
were removed by centrifugation in a microfuge at 14,000 rpm. The activity of free
monoclonal anti-Gal M86 remaining in the supernatant was determined in ELISA wells
coated with α-gal epitopes linked to bovine serum albumin (Dextra, Redding, UK) as the
solid phase antigen using horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgM
antibody (Dako, Copenhagen, Denmark) as the secondary antibody. As a standard to
calculate α-Gal epitopes numbers, mouse myeloma SP2/0 cells (ATCC, Manassas, VA)
were used based on because previous studies that have shown these cells express
approximately 1 x 106 α-Gal epitopes per cell.(14)
2.10 In Vitro Cytocompatibility of Scaffolds Assessed by Direct Contact
In vitro cell viability/cytotoxicity of scaffolds was monitored using two
colorimetric methods (CellTiter 96® AQueous One Solution Cell Proliferation Assay
[MTS], Promega, Madison, WI & Neutral Red-based Toxicology Assay TOX4, Sigma
Aldrich, St Louis, MO). Prior to use, scaffolds (n=8) were removed from −80°C storage,
cut to a size of 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm, and pre-wet with 70% ethanol for 2 hours, and then washed
three times in 50 mL of Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (Gibco® DMEM, Life
100
Technologies, Grand Island, NY) containing an antibiotic and antimycotic solution
(10,000 units/ml penicillin G, 10 mg/ml streptomycin sulfate and 25 μg/ml amphotericin
B; Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO). Latex fragments (n=10), which are considered cytotoxic,
were used as a positive control.(16) Negative controls consisting of cells in media only (n
= 10) and blank controls containing media only (n=10) were assayed in a similar fashion.
Scaffold pieces were placed in the center of sub-confluent NIH 3T3 cells (ATCC,
Manassas, VA) in 96-well plates (Nunc MaxiSorp, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham,
MA according to established standards.(17) The cell-material contact was maintained for
48 hours at 37°C and 5% CO2. At the end of the incubation, the scaffold pieces were
removed and the two separate assays were performed.
For the MTS assay, 20µl of CellTiter 96® AQueous One Solution Reagent was
pipetted into each well of the 96-well plate and the plate was incubated at 37°C and 5%
CO2 for 90 minutes. The amount of soluble formazan produced by cellular reduction of
MTS was measured at 490nm on a microplate reader (SpectraMax, Molecular Devices,
Sunnyvale, CA). The absorbance obtained was directly proportional to the metabolic
activity of the cell populations and inversely proportional to the cytotoxicity of the
material. For the Neutral Red-based assay, cell culture media was removed and the cell
layers were rinsed with 200 μl of cold Dulbecco’s phosphate buffered saline (DPBS,
Gibco® DMEM, Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY). 100 μl of Neutral Red solution was
added into each well and incubated at 37°C and 5% CO2 for 2 hours. At the end of the
incubation period, the medium was carefully removed and the cells quickly rinsed with
Neutral Red assay fixative. The fixative solution was removed and the incorporated dye
was then solubilized in 100 μl of Neutral Red assay solubilization solution. The plates were
101
agitated on a small bidirectional rotator (Barnstead 4630Q, Dubuque, IA) for 10 min.
Absorbance was measured at 540 nm using a 96-well plate microplate reader. Background
absorbance was measured at 690 nm and subtracted from 540 nm measurements. Again,
the measured absorbance obtained was directly proportional to the viability of the cell
populations and inversely proportional to the cytotoxicity of the material.
2.11. Induction of Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF- α) and Interleukin 6 (IL-6)
To further define the cytotoxic and inflammatory potential of the scaffolds, the pro-
inflammatory cytokine release of TNF-α and IL-6 was measured in vitro. Both native
porcine tendons (n=6) and porcine scaffold (n=6) were co-cultured with the human acute
monocytic leukemia cell line (THP-1; ATCC, Manassas, VA) using a previously published
protocol.(18) THP-1 cells were cultured in suspension in Roswell Park Memorial Institute
medium (RPMI 1640, Gibco® DMEM, Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) containing
10% fetal bovine serum (Valley Labs, Winchester, VA) and 1% antibiotic and antimycotic
solution (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO). A suspension of 40,000 cells containing 60 ng/ml
of phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO) was added to 6-well
plates (Corning Life Sciences, Kennebunk, ME) and incubated at 37°C and 5% CO2
overnight. At the end of the incubation period, the media was carefully removed using a
pipette, the cells were rinsed in Dulbecco’s phosphate buffered saline (DPBS; Gibco®
DMEM, Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) ,and then cultured in media containing 30
mg/ml either freezer-milled porcine tendon scaffold, freezer-milled native porcine tendon,
or lipopolysaccharides (LPS; Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO). Lipopolysaccharides are a
known inducer of a pro-inflammatory response and was used at 10 ng/ml as a positive
control. Cells in media only (no LPS) were used as a negative control. After overnight
incubation at 37°C and 5% CO2, the supernatant was collected using a pipette and any
102
cellular debris was removed by centrifugation at 10,000 g for 10 min. The cleared
supernatant was assayed for levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF-α and IL-6 using
two commercially available ELISA kits (Quantikine human TNF-α & Quantikine human
IL-6, R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN).
2.12. Non-human primate in vivo experiments
To assess the efficacy of the decellularization method outlined above in depleting
α-gal epitope, native porcine tendons and scaffolds were implanted in Old World primates
and their immune reaction to the scaffold was assessed. All animal procedures were
approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and conducted according
to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals. Like humans, Old World primates lack the α-gal epitope and continuously
produce natural anti-Gal antibodies that constitute about 1% of circulating
immunoglobulins. Therefore, Old World primates are not immunotolerant toward grafts
expressing the α-gal epitope leading to an acute rejection of these grafts caused by natural
anti-Gal antibodies in a manner similar to humans. Three antigen-depleted naturally
derived porcine tendon scaffolds were produced using the method outlined above. In
addition, two native porcine patellar tendon grafts that did not undergo antigen-depletion
served as controls. The grafts were implanted in 5 male Bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata)
with a mean weight of 7.4 kg (range, 4.6 kg to 9.4 kg). Animals were sedated with 5-20
mg/kg intramuscular ketamine. The implantation site between the scapulae was shaved and
prepared in a sterile fashion using 70 % isopropyl alcohol and iodine. All procedures were
performed using standard aseptic technique including the use of sterilized surgical
instruments for each animal. An incision, approximately 3cm in length was made between
the scapulae. The native tendons or decellularized scaffolds were placed in a subcutaneous
103
pocket and secured with two 5-0 vicryl sutures. The wound was thoroughly irrigated with
sterile normal saline and closed with subdermal 2-0 vicryl sutures. The skin was closed
with a single 4-0 nylon suture. Native tendon and scaffold placement was confirmed by
ultrasound 2 weeks and 6 weeks following implantation.
Blood samples were obtained under ketamine sedation from all animals prior to the
surgical procedure, 2 days after the procedure and 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 13 weeks after
implantation. Whole blood samples (2ml per animal) were analyzed for white blood cell
counts (WBC). Approximately 4 ml of whole blood was collected in serum-separating
tubes that were centrifuged immediately following collection. Approximately 3 ml of
serum from each animal was obtained and transferred to sterile Eppendorf tubes and frozen
at -80°C for further processing.
Anti-α-gal activity in the serum of transplanted monkeys was assessed pre-operatively and
at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 13 post-operatively using an ELISA protocol adapted from Stone et
al. (19, 20) and Galili et al. (21). Briefly, 96-well plates (Nunc MaxiSorp, Thermo Fisher
Scientific, Waltham, MA) were coated with 50 µl of 10 µg/ml α-Gal-BSA (Dextra,
Redding, UK) for 2 hours at 37◦C and incubated overnight at 4◦C prior to being blocked
with 1% BSA. 50 µl serum aliquots diluted in 1% BSA in twofold serial dilutions from
1:50 to 1:6400 were added to wells in triplicate and incubated for 1 hour at room
temperature. Wells were aspirated and washed five times with sterile PBS. Polyclonal
rabbit anti-human antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase (HRP) (Dako,
Copenhagen, Denmark) diluted 1:1000 was then added to wells in 50 µl aliquots and
incubated for 1 hour at room temperature. HRP substrate (OPD, Sigma Aldrich, St Louis,
MO) was added for 30 minutes before halting color development by addition of 2N sulfuric
104
acid. Absorbance was measured at 492 nm on a microplate reader (SpectraMax, Molecular
Devices, Sunnyvale, CA). The fold change of the anti-α-Gal antibody was calculated
relative to pre-transplantation levels at each time point.
2.13. Statistical Analysis
Data from the in vitro experiments (MTS assay, neutral red assay, DNA content, α-
gal Epitope levels, TNF-α and IL-6, and residual PAA) were analyzed in triplicates. All
numerical data were averaged, the standard deviation of the mean was calculated, and a
comparison was made between appropriate groups using a two-tailed Student t-test with
equal variances for parametric data. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for analysis of
nonparametric data. For comparisons of multiple groups, one-way analysis of variance was
performed with post-hoct-testing using a Bonferroni correction. A p value of <0.05 was
considered significant.
105
RESULTS
3.1. Histological Analysis
Abundant cellular material, specifically nuclear material, was evident after H&E
(Figure 1A), Masson trichrome (Figure 1C) and DAPI staining (Figure 1E) of cross-
sectional sections of fresh-frozen native porcine patellar tendon prior to decellularization
and oxidation. Of note, there is minimal inter-fascicular and intra-fascicular space present
in the sections of the fresh-frozen native porcine patellar tendon prior to processing. After
decellularization and oxidation, no cells or condensed nuclear material were evident after
H&E staining (Figure 1B), Masson trichrome (Figure 1D), and DAPI staining (Figure 1F).
An increase in intra-fascicular and inter-fascicular space after oxidative treatment was also
observed.
3.2. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Analysis
Scanning electron microscopy demonstrated a dense micro-architecture observed
in the cross-sectional sections of fresh-frozen native porcine patellar tendon prior to
decellularization and oxidation (Figure 2A), as well as an increase in inter-fascicular and
intra-fascicular space which correlates with an increase in overall total porosity and pore
size after decellularization and oxidation (Figure 2B).
3.3. Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry
The mean total porosity measured by mercury intrusion porosimetry was 37.7% ±
4.25% for the native porcine patellar tendon and 68.43% ± 8.76% for the porcine tendon
scaffolds (Figure 3A). This difference was statistically different, p < 0.001. Similarly, the
mean pore size was 0.24 ± 0.11 μm for the native porcine patellar tendon compared with
2.32 ± 2.36 μm for the porcine tendon scaffolds (Figure 3B) (p < 0.001). These
106
measurements quantify the histological observation of increased in intra-fascicular and
inter-fascicular space after oxidative treatment.
3.4. Detection and Identification of Proteins with Mass spectrometry
Mass spectrometry analysis demonstrated the presence of collagens and
extracellular matrix proteins with high scores indicating minimal disruption to structural
characteristics that may significantly influence the mechanics and biomechanical tensile
properties of tendon and ligaments. Analysis revealed the presence of various types of
collagen. Through evolution, collagen has maintained a highly conserved amino acid
sequence which is the reason for its low antigenic potential. Other non-fibrillar components
such as proteoglycans decorin and fibromodulin and glycoproteins such as thrombospondin
and tenascin-C precursor were also detected. The mass spectrometry results from 3 distinct
tendon scaffolds are shown in Table 1. Only proteins with a score of ≥ 100 in a single
sample are shown.
3.5. Tensile Testing
No gross slippage or intermittent loss of load during elongation was observed
during testing. All specimens failed at the midsubstance and none were excluded from
analysis. The ultimate tensile load (UTL) at failure was 81.84 ± 41.60 N for the native
porcine patellar tendons compared to 95.31 ± 47.66 N for the porcine tendon scaffolds (p
= 0.372) (Table 2). The stiffness of the native tendons was 23.64 ± 13.70 N/mm compared
to 25.66 ± 13.28 N/mm for the tendon scaffolds (p = 0.657). The ultimate tensile stress at
failure was 4.60 ± 2.36 MPa for the native tendon and 5.45 ± 2.55 MPa for the tendon
scaffolds (p = 0.306). The calculated elastic modulus (E) of the native tendons was 33.65
± 18.52 MPa compared to 33.67 ± 17.13 MPa for the tendon scaffolds (p = 0.997). There
was no statistical difference between UTL, stiffness, and E between native porcine patellar
107
tendon and decellularized and oxidized scaffolds. The percent elongation at ultimate tensile
stress was 32.33% ± 5.28% for the native tendons and 53.70% ± 12.99% for the tendon
scaffolds (p < 0.001). This difference was likely due to the breaking of bonds between
proteins of the extracellular matrix during the decellularization and oxidation process.
3.6. DNA Content
The mean DNA content of the native porcine patellar tendon was 175.44 ± 57.25
ng DNA/mg tissue dry weight compared with 69.24 ± 20.43 ng DNA/mg tissue dry weight
for the decellularized and oxidized scaffold, p<0.001. The DNA content of the
decellularized and oxidized scaffolds was decreased by 61% compared to native tendon
(Figure 4).
3.7. Analysis of Residual Peracetic Acid
The PAA concentration after the 2 hours incubation period was 68.33 ± 12.91 ppm
and was reduced to 31.67 ± 7.53 ppm after the initial wash step (12 hours). None of the
scaffolds had residual PAA at the detection limit after the fourth (24 hour) and final wash
(36 hours) (Figure 5).
3.8. In Vitro Cytocompatibility of Scaffolds Assessed by Direct Contact
In vitro cytotoxicity of scaffolds was determined by the MTS assay. NIH 3T3 cells
were exposed to scaffold pieces and absorbance was measured at 490 nm providing an
estimation of mitochondrial activity of viable cell. Absorbance for cells exposed to scaffold
pieces was 0.268 ± 0.141, which was not significantly different to cells exposed to media
only 0.325 ± 0.135, p = 0.399. Similarly, theneutral reduptakeassaywasusedtoprovide
a quantitative estimation of the number of viable cells in a culture. The absorbance at 540
nm was 0.19 ± 0.07 for cells exposed to scaffold pieces compared to 0.260 ± 0.09 for NIH
3T3 cells exposed to media alone. This difference was not significant (p = 0.105). The
108
absorbance for cells exposed to the scaffolds and for cells exposed to media only (negative
controls) differed significantly from the absorbance for cells exposed to latex particles
(positive control) in both assays, p < 0.001.
3.9. Measurement of α-gal Epitope Levels
The elimination of α-Gal epitopes from native porcine patellar tendon using a
decellularization and oxidation process was assessed by binding of the monoclonal anti-
Gal M86 antibody to α-Gal epitopes of freezer-milled tendon using an established ELISA
inhibition assay. Untreated native porcine tendon displayed 50% inhibition of M86 binding
in the ELISA inhibition assay at 6.85 mg/ml tendon homogenate (Figure 6A).
Decellularization and oxidation treatment of the tendons resulted in a significantly lower
interaction of the anti-Gal M86 antibody with the scaffold homogenate with approximately
17% on inhibition at the same tissue concentration of 6.85 mg/ml (Figure 6A). This was a
reduction of approximately 66% of α-Gal epitopes expressed in the tissue. Overall, there
was a significant reduction but not complete elimination of α-Gal epitopes observed at all
tissue concentrations, p < 0.001.
Mouse myeloma SP2/0 cells express approximately 1 x 106 α-Gal epitopes per
cell.(14) A similar 50% inhibition of the M86 antibody was obtained with the mouse
myeloma cells SP2/0 at a concentration of 2.86 x 107 cells/ml (Figure 6B). Because the
mouse myeloma SP2/0 cells express approximately 1 x 106 α-Gal epitopes per cell, the
total concentration of α-Gal epitopes that induce 50% inhibition of M86 binding is 2.86 x
1013 α-Gal epitopes/ml. This suggests that 6.85 mg of native porcine patellar tendon
contains approximately 2.86 x 1013 α-Gal epitopes/ml. This measurement may not provide
109
for an accurate calculation of the number of α-Gal epitopes per cell, however, it does allow
for relative measurement of these epitopes and cross comparisons.
3.10. Induction of Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF- α) and Interleukin 6 (IL-6)
The in vitro release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-
α) and interleukin 6 (IL-6), by THP-1 cells in response to exposure to either native porcine
patellar tendon or porcine patellar tendon scaffold was determined using ELISA and
compared to LPS stimulation. THP-1 cells exposed to native tendon released a mean of
250.69 ± 128.39 pg/ml of TNF-α compared to a mean of 82.59 ± 100.55 pg/ml in cells
exposed to tendon scaffold (Figure 7A). Stimulation of THP-1 cells with LPS 10ng/ml
yielded a mean release of 390.51 ± 48.85 pg/ml, respectively (Figure 7A). These findings
indicate that decellularization and oxidation resulted in significantly less TNF-α release, p
< 0.001. Similar results were attained when assaying for IL-6 release. THP-1 cells exposed
to native tendon released a mean of 4.15 ± 0.46 pg/ml of IL-6 compared to a mean of 3.59
± 0.39 pg/ml in cells exposed to tendon scaffold (Figure 7B). Interleukin-6 release in
response to LPS 10ng/ml stimulation was 5.58 ± 0.58 pg/ml (Figure 7B). Again, these
results demonstrate that decellularization and oxidation resulted in significantly less IL-6
release when compared to native porcine tendon and LPS stimulation, p < 0.001
2.14. Non-human primate in vivo experiments
Standard clinical hematological panels including white blood cell counts with
differentials did not yield any adverse findings in either monkeys receiving a native tendon
implant or monkeys receiving a porcine tendon scaffold. ELISA measurements of anti-Gal
response have been proven to be a sensitive measure for presence of α-gal epitopes on the
graft.(15, 20) The response is depicted as a fold-change from baseline (pre-implantation)
for anti-Gal antibody at 50% maximal binding (Figure 8). The anti-Gal titer in monkeys
110
who received native porcine patellar tendon grafts increased by an average of 47.45-fold
within 2 weeks post implantation compared to a 27.96-fold change in monkeys receiving
a tendon scaffold. A similar change was observed at 4 weeks post implantation with a
38.22-fold change for the titer in monkeys receiving native tendons and a 21.23-fold
change in titer for the monkeys receiving tendon scaffold. At the 8 and 13 week time points
post implantation, anti-Gal titers were attenuated in both monkeys receiving native porcine
tendons and decellularized and oxidized tendon scaffolds; 8.14-fold and 3.08-fold change
in titer for the monkeys who received tendon graft compared to 6.08-fold and 4.75-fold
change in titer for the monkeys who received decellularized and oxidized tendon scaffolds,
respectively. There was a greater than 40% increase in titer in the initial 2 to 4 week post
implantation period in the monkeys receiving native tendon as compared with the monkey
engrafted with tendon scaffold.
111
DISCUSSION
With increased popularity and usage of human allograft tissue in orthopaedic
surgery, the discrepancy between the demand and supply of allograft tissue for clinical use
as well as allograft safety remain major concerns.(3, 22) The development of xenograft-
based scaffolds for tendon and ligament repair may represent a potential approach to
addressing these concerns. Xenografts are highly attractive because they carry a small risk
of infectious disease transmission, are non-supply constrained, inexpensive, and are not
associated with donor site morbidity. The purpose of the present study was to develop a
decellularized xenograft-based scaffold suitable for tendon and ligament reconstruction.
The challenge was to decrease immunogenicity by removing any cellular material and
removing xenoantigens associated with graft rejection without compromising the
mechanical integrity.
In tissue engineering, numerous decellularization processes have been applied to
remove immunogenic material and produce scaffolds that preserve native anatomy and
biomechanical properties.(23, 24) The decellularization protocol used in the present study
is a combination of physical, chemical and enzymatic modalities. This protocol was
developed in our laboratories and has been used in tissue decellularization and sterilization
using various source materials including domestic chicken (Gallus gallusdomesticus) and
human allograft tendons.(12, 13) It includes sequential steps combining freeze-thaw
cycles, hypotonic solutions to lyse cells, enzymatic treatment with trypsin, extensive
washing, non-ionic detergent Triton X-100, peracetic acid, and lyophilization. Our study
results demonstrate near-complete removal of nuclear material as shown by DNA analysis
and histology. One of the biggest concerns with decellularization/oxidation of soft tissue
112
such as tendons and ligaments is damage to collagen, the major stress bearing component
of these tissues. Histological, SEM, and mass spectrometry analysis revealed preserved
microarchitecture and collagen content following decellularization. Therefore, this
increased inter-fascicular and intra-fascicular space may be beneficial and facilitate cell
infiltration and remodeling. Similar findings with regard to the microarchitecture have been
reported with other decellularization protocols.(25-27)
The biocompatibility of the scaffold was tested using in vitro direct contact
cytotoxicity assays.(17) Using a combination of Triton-X and peracetic acid in the
decellularization process, no cytotoxicity toward the scaffold or any residual material in
the scaffold matrix was found. This finding is important since other detergents such as
sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) have shown to negatively impact tissues.(28, 29) In a recent
study by Vavken et al, Triton-X was found to be most effective for decellularization
without detrimental effects to collagen, total protein content, and glycosaminoglycan
content.(30) Peracetic acid is a common sterilization reagent that is effective against
bacteria, viruses, and spores (31-33) and has been shown to be important in increasing
porosity and reseeding potential in tissue engineering.(12, 34) Scheffler et al. reported
deleterious effects of peracetic acid sterilization on soft tissue allografts with delayed
remodeling at 8 and 12 weeks.(35) This finding stands in contrast to our previous in vitro
and in vivo findings in which we were unable to detect any residual peracetic acid after
oxidation and did not see any effects on the remodeling potential in an animal model of
xenogenic ACL reconstruction.(12, 13, 36) Furthermore, peracetic acid is known to break
down into oxygen, water, and carbon dioxide leaving no harmful residues.(37, 38)
113
Hyperacute rejection of tissues transplanted from animals to humans is primarily
mediated by the recognition of the naturally occurring anti-Gal antibody in humans to the
xenoantigen α-gal on transplanted animal tissue.(8, 39) Thus, it is critically important to
ensure that during the production of xenogenic scaffolds that α-gal epitopes are removed.
Several decellularization processes using either a detergent such as SDS or an enzymatic
treatment with α-galactosidase have shown promising results for eliminating the α-gal
epitope.(20, 40) Despite the fact that we achieved a significant reduction in epitope
expression, our process does not completely eliminate the expression of α–Gal epitopes. In
addition, there was an attenuated response and a decrease in the release of pro-
inflammatory markers to decellularized and oxidized scaffolds in vitro when compared to
untreated native tendons. These findings were consistent with the non-human primate
experiments in which we saw an approximately 25-fold decrease in response in antibody
production when compared to native untreated tendons. However, without an established
rejection threshold of α-gal epitopes, it is unclear if a low-level of remaining α-gal epitopes
may result in a prolonged low-level anti-Gal antibody production and chronic
inflammatory response comparable to a long-term tissue rejection limiting the functional
integrity of xenograft scaffolds.(41, 42) Raeder at el studied the ability of naturally
occurring anti-Gal antibodies to influence the success of implantation and remodeling of
untreated porcine small intestine submucosa (SIS).(43) The authors implanted SIS in α-
Gal knockout mice and found that there was slight delay in SIS remodeling and prolonged
inflammation at the implant site and that these differences disappeared by day 35 post-
implantation when compared to controls. Based on these findings, the authors concluded
conclude that naturally occurring anti-Gal antibodies in humans have little influence on the
114
acceptance of xenogenic biomaterials.(43) Konakci et al investigated the sera of patients
that received various porcine valve prostheses and found that contained cells that expressed
the α–Gal epitope and elicit a specific cytotoxic immune response mediated by IgM.(44)
The authors suggested that any procedure diminishing the presence of the α–Gal epitope
might decrease the immune response against the xenograft. In our study, we did observe a
lessened immune response to the decellularized and oxidized tendons in vivo. However,
further studies are needed to determine whether scaffolds developed using this process can
circumvent rejection under a sustained low-level production of these antibodies.
One of the limitations of this study is that scaffolds were implanted subcutaneously
in Old World monkeys. Thus, based strictly on these in vivo studies, we are unable to draw
any conclusions regarding the use of this porcine-derived scaffold as a graft choice with
suitable tensile properties to replace an injured ligament such as the anterior cruciate
ligament in humans. Given the significant costs associated with non-human primate
studies, we do not have any long-term data analyzing if this scaffold is repopulated by
recipient’s cells and undergoes the process of ligamentization. While we did observe
repopulation and ligamentization in vivo using a different source material in an earlier
publication(12), we do not have sufficient data with the porcine-derived scaffold to draw
similar conclusions and additional long-term in vivo experiments are required to determine
the effects of the in vivo environment on scaffold remodeling and biomechanical properties.
115
CONCLUSIONS
The results presented here demonstrate that a novel process for decellularization
and oxidation of porcine patellar tendon is effective in reducing cellular material and
decreasing the expression of the α-Gal epitope. Both the removal of cellular material as
well as the reduced expression of the α-Gal epitope may reduce the immunogenicity of the
scaffolds. The chemical oxidation portion of our process resulted in increased porosity and
individual pore size without compromising the extracellular matrix so that the prepared
scaffold has the potential to serve as a template for cell infiltration and repopulation.
Despite these promising preliminary results, additional long-term studies are needed to
further delineate the host response before assuming that this porcine xenograft-derived
scaffold is a viable option that performs in an analogous manner when compared to
autografts and allografts.
116
REFERENCES
1. Hinsenkamp M, Muylle L, Eastlund T, Fehily D, Noel L, Strong DM. Adverse
reactions and events related to musculoskeletal allografts: reviewed by the World Health
Organisation Project NOTIFY. International orthopaedics. 2012 Mar;36(3):633-41.
PubMed PMID: 22048753. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3291755. Epub 2011/11/04. eng.
2. Mallick TK, Mosquera A, Zinderman CE, St Martin L, Wise RP. Reported
infections after human tissue transplantation before and after new Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulations, United States, 2001 through June, 2010. Cell and
tissue banking. 2012 Jun;13(2):259-67. PubMed PMID: 21479712. Epub 2011/04/12.
eng.
3. Mroz TE, Joyce MJ, Steinmetz MP, Lieberman IH, Wang JC. Musculoskeletal
allograft risks and recalls in the United States. The Journal of the American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2008 Oct;16(10):559-65. PubMed PMID: 18832599. Epub
2008/10/04. eng.
4. Varettas K. Micro-organisms isolated from cadaveric samples of allograft
musculoskeletal tissue. Cell and tissue banking. 2013 Jan 23. PubMed PMID: 23340929.
Epub 2013/01/24. Eng.
5. Pierson RN, 3rd, Dorling A, Ayares D, Rees MA, Seebach JD, Fishman JA, et al.
Current status of xenotransplantation and prospects for clinical application.
Xenotransplantation. 2009 Sep-Oct;16(5):263-80. PubMed PMID: 19796067. Pubmed
Central PMCID: 2866107. Epub 2009/10/03. eng.
6. Tisato V, Cozzi E. Xenotransplantation: an overview of the field. Methods Mol
Biol. 2012;885:1-16. PubMed PMID: 22565986. Epub 2012/05/09. eng.
117
7. Laurencin CT, El-Amin SF. Xenotransplantation in orthopaedic surgery. The
Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2008 Jan;16(1):4-8.
PubMed PMID: 18180387. Epub 2008/01/09. eng.
8. Galili U. The alpha-Gal epitope (Galalpha1-3Galbeta1-4GlcNAc-R) in
xenotransplantation. Biochimie. 2001 Jul;83(7):557-63. PubMed PMID: 11522383. Epub
2001/08/28. eng.
9. Scalea J, Hanecamp I, Robson SC, Yamada K. T-cell-mediated immunological
barriers to xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation. 2012 Jan-Feb;19(1):23-30. PubMed
PMID: 22360750. Epub 2012/03/01. eng.
10. Rihn JA, Harner CD. The use of musculoskeletal allograft tissue in knee surgery.
Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the
Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy
Association. 2003 Dec;19 Suppl 1:51-66. PubMed PMID: 14673420. Epub 2003/12/16.
eng.
11. Dion N, Sim FH. The use of allografts in musculoskeletal oncology. Instructional
course lectures. 2002;51:499-506. PubMed PMID: 12064140. Epub 2002/06/18. eng.
12. Whitlock PW, Seyler TM, Parks GD, Ornelles DA, Smith TL, Van Dyke ME, et
al. A novel process for optimizing musculoskeletal allograft tissue to improve safety,
ultrastructural properties, and cell infiltration. The Journal of bone and joint surgery
American volume. 2012 Aug 15;94(16):1458-67. PubMed PMID: 22786867. Epub
2012/07/13. eng.
13. Whitlock PW, Smith TL, Poehling GG, Shilt JS, Van Dyke M. A naturally
derived, cytocompatible, and architecturally optimized scaffold for tendon and ligament
118
regeneration. Biomaterials. 2007 Oct;28(29):4321-9. PubMed PMID: 17610948. Epub
2007/07/06. eng.
14. Galili U, LaTemple DC, Radic MZ. A sensitive assay for measuring alpha-Gal
epitope expression on cells by a monoclonal anti-Gal antibody. Transplantation. 1998
Apr 27;65(8):1129-32. PubMed PMID: 9583877. Epub 1998/05/16. eng.
15. Stone KR, Abdel-Motal UM, Walgenbach AW, Turek TJ, Galili U. Replacement
of human anterior cruciate ligaments with pig ligaments: a model for anti-non-gal
antibody response in long-term xenotransplantation. Transplantation. 2007 Jan
27;83(2):211-9. PubMed PMID: 17264818. Epub 2007/02/01. eng.
16. Uphill PF, Christopher DH. Developing a Positive Control for Cytotoxicity
Testing of Medical Device Materials. Medical Device Technology. 1990;Nov/Dec:24-7.
17. International Organization for Standardization I. ISO 10993-5:2009 Biological
evaluation of medical devices - Part 5: Tests for in vitro cytotoxicity. 2009:1-34.
18. Supronowicz P, Zhukauskas R, York-Ely A, Wicomb W, Thula T, Fleming L, et
al. Immunologic analyses of bovine bone treated with a novel tissue sterilization process.
Xenotransplantation. 2008 Nov-Dec;15(6):398-406. PubMed PMID: 19152668. Epub
2009/01/21. eng.
19. Stone KR, Ayala G, Goldstein J, Hurst R, Walgenbach A, Galili U. Porcine
cartilage transplants in the cynomolgus monkey. III. Transplantation of alpha-
galactosidase-treated porcine cartilage. Transplantation. 1998 Jun 27;65(12):1577-83.
PubMed PMID: 9665073. Epub 1998/07/17. eng.
20. Stone KR, Walgenbach AW, Turek TJ, Somers DL, Wicomb W, Galili U.
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a porcine xenograft: a serologic,
119
histologic, and biomechanical study in primates. Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic
& related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America
and the International Arthroscopy Association. 2007 Apr;23(4):411-9. PubMed PMID:
17418335. Epub 2007/04/10. eng.
21. Galili U, LaTemple DC, Walgenbach AW, Stone KR. Porcine and bovine
cartilage transplants in cynomolgus monkey: II. Changes in anti-Gal response during
chronic rejection. Transplantation. 1997 Mar 15;63(5):646-51. PubMed PMID: 9075832.
Epub 1997/03/15. eng.
22. Vangsness CT, Jr., Dellamaggiora RD. Current safety sterilization and tissue
banking issues for soft tissue allografts. Clinics in sports medicine. 2009 Apr;28(2):183-
9, vii. PubMed PMID: 19306728. Epub 2009/03/25. eng.
23. Gilbert TW. Strategies for tissue and organ decellularization. Journal of cellular
biochemistry. 2012 Jul;113(7):2217-22. PubMed PMID: 22415903. Epub 2012/03/15.
eng.
24. Gilbert TW, Sellaro TL, Badylak SF. Decellularization of tissues and organs.
Biomaterials. 2006 Jul;27(19):3675-83. PubMed PMID: 16519932. Epub 2006/03/08.
eng.
25. Ingram JH, Korossis S, Howling G, Fisher J, Ingham E. The use of ultrasonication
to aid recellularization of acellular natural tissue scaffolds for use in anterior cruciate
ligament reconstruction. Tissue engineering. 2007 Jul;13(7):1561-72. PubMed PMID:
17518726. Epub 2007/05/24. eng.
26. Scheffler SU, Scherler J, Pruss A, von Versen R, Weiler A. Biomechanical
comparison of human bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts after sterilization with peracetic
120
acid ethanol. Cell and tissue banking. 2005;6(2):109-15. PubMed PMID: 15909098.
Epub 2005/05/24. eng.
27. Huang Q, Dawson RA, Pegg DE, Kearney JN, Macneil S. Use of peracetic acid to
sterilize human donor skin for production of acellular dermal matrices for clinical use.
Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and]
the European Tissue Repair Society. 2004 May-Jun;12(3):276-87. PubMed PMID:
15225206. Epub 2004/07/01. eng.
28. Bodnar E, Olsen EG, Florio R, Dobrin J. Damage of porcine aortic valve tissue
caused by the surfactant sodiumdodecylsulphate. The Thoracic and cardiovascular
surgeon. 1986 Apr;34(2):82-5. PubMed PMID: 2424134. Epub 1986/04/01. eng.
29. Cebotari S, Tudorache I, Jaekel T, Hilfiker A, Dorfman S, Ternes W, et al.
Detergent decellularization of heart valves for tissue engineering: toxicological effects of
residual detergents on human endothelial cells. Artificial organs. 2010 Mar;34(3):206-10.
PubMed PMID: 20447045. Epub 2010/05/08. eng.
30. Vavken P, Joshi S, Murray MM. TRITON-X is most effective among three
decellularization agents for ACL tissue engineering. Journal of orthopaedic research :
official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society. 2009 Dec;27(12):1612-8.
PubMed PMID: 19504590. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2824567. Epub 2009/06/09. eng.
31. Pruss A, Baumann B, Seibold M, Kao M, Tintelnot K, von Versen R, et al.
Validation of the sterilization procedure of allogeneic avital bone transplants using
peracetic acid-ethanol. Biologicals : journal of the International Association of Biological
Standardization. 2001 Jun;29(2):59-66. PubMed PMID: 11580210. Epub 2001/10/03.
eng.
121
32. Pruss A, Hansen A, Kao M, Gurtler L, Pauli G, Benedix F, et al. Comparison of
the efficacy of virus inactivation methods in allogeneic avital bone tissue transplants. Cell
and tissue banking. 2001;2(4):201-15. PubMed PMID: 15256903. Epub 2004/07/17. eng.
33. Pruss A, Kao M, Kiesewetter H, von Versen R, Pauli G. Virus safety of avital
bone tissue transplants: evaluation of sterilization steps of spongiosa cuboids using a
peracetic acid-methanol mixture. Biologicals : journal of the International Association of
Biological Standardization. 1999 Sep;27(3):195-201. PubMed PMID: 10652175. Epub
2000/02/01. eng.
34. Woon CY, Pridgen BC, Kraus A, Bari S, Pham H, Chang J. Optimization of
human tendon tissue engineering: peracetic acid oxidation for enhanced reseeding of
acellularized intrasynovial tendon. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2011
Mar;127(3):1107-17. PubMed PMID: 21364414. Epub 2011/03/03. eng.
35. Scheffler SU, Gonnermann J, Kamp J, Przybilla D, Pruss A. Remodeling of ACL
allografts is inhibited by peracetic acid sterilization. Clinical orthopaedics and related
research. 2008 Aug;466(8):1810-8. PubMed PMID: 18491201. Pubmed Central PMCID:
2584264. Epub 2008/05/21. eng.
36. Whitlock PW, Seyler TM, Northam CN, Smith TL, Poehling GG, Koman LA, et
al. Effect of cyclic strain on tensile properties of a naturally derived, decellularized
tendon scaffold seeded with allogeneic tenocytes and associated messenger RNA
expression. Journal of surgical orthopaedic advances. 2013 Fall;22(3):224-32. PubMed
PMID: 24063799. Epub 2013/09/26. eng.
37. Centre of Disease Control. Guidelines for Disinfection and Sterilization in
Healthcare Facilities. 2008.
122
38. Malchesky P. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. 5th ed. Philadelphia,
PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000 December 15, 2000. 1504 pages p.
39. Sandrin MS, McKenzie IF. Gal alpha (1,3)Gal, the major xenoantigen(s)
recognised in pigs by human natural antibodies. Immunological reviews. 1994
Oct;141:169-90. PubMed PMID: 7532618. Epub 1994/10/01. eng.
40. Stapleton TW, Ingram J, Katta J, Knight R, Korossis S, Fisher J, et al.
Development and characterization of an acellular porcine medial meniscus for use in
tissue engineering. Tissue engineering Part A. 2008 Apr;14(4):505-18. PubMed PMID:
18370607. Epub 2008/03/29. eng.
41. Wang H, Yang YG. Innate cellular immunity and xenotransplantation. Current
opinion in organ transplantation. 2012 Apr;17(2):162-7. PubMed PMID: 22262106.
Pubmed Central PMCID: 3324331. Epub 2012/01/21. eng.
42. Galili U, Tibell A, Samuelsson B, Rydberg L, Groth CG. Increased anti-Gal
activity in diabetic patients transplanted with fetal porcine islet cell clusters.
Transplantation. 1995 Jun 15;59(11):1549-56. PubMed PMID: 7539957. Epub
1995/06/15. eng.
43. Raeder RH, Badylak SF, Sheehan C, Kallakury B, Metzger DW. Natural anti-
galactose alpha1,3 galactose antibodies delay, but do not prevent the acceptance of
extracellular matrix xenografts. Transplant immunology. 2002 Jun;10(1):15-24. PubMed
PMID: 12182460. Epub 2002/08/17. eng.
44. Konakci KZ, Bohle B, Blumer R, Hoetzenecker W, Roth G, Moser B, et al.
Alpha-Gal on bioprostheses: xenograft immune response in cardiac surgery. European
123
journal of clinical investigation. 2005 Jan;35(1):17-23. PubMed PMID: 15638815. Epub
2005/01/11. eng.
124
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Histologic Analysis of native porcine patellar tendon and porcine patellar tendon-derived scaffolds. (A) H&E-stained cross section of native patellar tendon; (B) H&E-stained cross section of scaffold; (C) Masson trichrome-stained cross section of native patellar tendon; (D) Masson trichrome-stained cross section of scaffold; (E) DAPI-stained cross section of native patellar tendon; (F) DAPI-stained cross section of scaffold. Removal of nuclear material and an increase in intra-fascicular and inter-fascicular space after oxidative treatment was observed. Panels a through F at 200X magnification.
125
Figure 2. Scanning Electron Microscopy of native porcine patellar tendon and porcine patellar tendon-derived scaffolds. (A) Cross-section of native porcine patellar tendon; (B) Cross-section of porcine patellar tendon-derived scaffold. There was an increase in increase in inter-fascicular and intra-fascicular space. 50X magnification.
126
Figure 3. Mercury intrusion porosimetry demonstrated a statistically significant increase in total porosimetry (A) (p<0.001) and mean pore size (B) (p<0.001) in decellularized and oxidized scaffolds compared to native tendons.
127
Figure 4. DNA detection assay revealed a significant decreased of mean DNA content in the porcine tendon-derived scaffold by 61% when compared to native tendon, p<0.001. Data expressed as the mean and standard deviation.
128
Figure 5. Within 24 hours of the oxidation step of the decellularization protocol, the peracetic acid was removed to a level below detection limits.
129
Figure 6. ELISA inhibition assay performed with the monoclonal anti-Gal antibody M86. Data presented as % inhibition of M86 binding to α-gal-BSA in ELISA, after overnight incubation of M86 diluted 1/100. (A) Measuring α- gal epitope expression in native porcine patellar tendon [white circle] and porcine tendon-derived scaffold after decellularization and oxidation [black circle]. This was a reduction of approximately 66% of α-Gal epitopes expressed in the tissue at 50% inhibition of M86 binding. (B) As a standard to calculate epitope number, mouse myeloma SP2/0 cells at various concentrations were used because these cells to express approximately 106 α-gal epitopes per cell. Error bars represent standard deviation.
130
Figure 7. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF-a) (A) and IL-6 (B) release by human acute monocytic leukemia (THP-1) cells exposed to porcine tendon-derived scaffold and native tendon. Treatment of native tendon with a novel decellularization and oxidation process resulted in a significantly (p<0.001) lower production of TNF-a release compared with native tendon and LPS stimulation. Similar results were observed in IL-6 release. LPS was used as a reference in both experiments with at two concentrations (10ng/ml). Results are displayed as the mean and standard deviation for each group.
131
Figure 8. ELISA measurements of anti-Gal response in monkeys who received native porcine patellar tendon and monkeys who received porcine tendon-derived scaffolds. Response is depicted as fold-change from baseline (pre-implantation) for anti-Gal antibody at 50% maximal binding There was a greater than 40% increase in titer in the initial 2 to 4 week post implantation period in the monkeys receiving native tendon as compared with the monkey engrafted with tendon scaffold. No difference was noted at the 8 and 13 week time points. Error bars represent standard deviation.
132
Table 1. Mass spectrometry results listing specific mass, accession number, protein description and score per sample.
Table 1. Mass spectrometry
Accession # Score Scaffold #1 Score Scaffold #2 Score Scaffold #3 Mass Description
335303568 3597 3784 3060 322197 collagen alpha‐3(VI) chain isoform 2 [Sus scrofa]
343887367 3577 3394 3070 129652 collagen, type I, alpha 2 precursor [Sus scrofa]
350578415 1619 1331 1156 241355 collagen alpha‐1(XII) chain [Sus scrofa]
335300861 745 926 764 106542 collagen alpha‐2(VI) chain [Sus scrofa]
343168808 705 614 539 139788 collagen alpha‐1(III) chain precursor [Sus scrofa]
833798 665 ND ND 71362 albumin [Sus scrofa]
124257959 746 820 746 71550 albumin, partial [Sus scrofa]
350590450 548 562 1105 43557 collagen alpha‐1(I) chain [Sus scrofa]
350596326 114 108 118 144181 collagen alpha‐1(II) chain‐like, partial [Sus scrofa]
311264394 466 552 387 43570 fibromodulin‐like isoform 1 [Sus scrofa]
350581945 461 447 455 27343 mimecan‐like [Sus scrofa]
311253435 346 433 287 194518 collagen alpha‐1(XIV) chain [Sus scrofa]
311277155 291 323 292 41849 biglycan [Sus scrofa]
311249371 259 459 352 128704 cartilage intermediate layer protein 2 [Sus scrofa]
335293906 217 185 131 36169 annexin A5‐like [Sus scrofa]
809283 207 ND ND 16082 chain B, porcine hemoglobin [Sus scrofa]
335310813 181 155 132 42655 collagen alpha‐1(VI) chain‐like, partial [Sus scrofa]
4501885 178 215 121 42052 actin, cytoplasmic 1 [Homo sapiens]
335296459 153 165 77 53692 vimentin‐like [Sus scrofa]
92020086 147 105 112 10639 type VI collagen alpha‐1 chain [Sus scrofa]
47523544 146 281 111 196922 tenascin precursor [Sus scrofa]
54020966 146 134 ND 38795 annexin A2 [Sus scrofa]
350580885 134 133 ND 99696 thrombospondin‐4‐like [Sus scrofa]
343183420 127 165 148 39097 lumican precursor [Sus scrofa]
335293644 119 ND 77 54724 vitamin D‐binding protein [Sus scrofa]
122465 110 62 60 15087 hemoglobin subunit alpha [Sus scrofa]
311264396 108 154 121 44084 prolargin‐like [Sus scrofa]
6919844 ND 328 210 75042 transforming growth factor‐beta‐induced protein ig‐
h3 [Sus scrofa]
4929107 ND 122 109 36022 decorin [Sus scrofa]
89574051 ND 111 ND 47060 mitochondrial ATP synthase, H+ transporting F1
complex beta subunit [Sus scrofa]
1165145 ND 101 47 38501 annexin I [Sus scrofa]
164507 117 ND 117 51886 immunoglobulin gamma‐chain [Sus scrofa]
ND = not detected
133
Table 2. Mass spectrometry results listing specific mass, accession number, protein description and score per sample.
Table 2. In vitro Tensile Testing
Biomechanical Property Native Tendon Tendon Scaffold P Value
UTL [N] 81.84 ± 41.60 95.31 ± 47.66 0.372Stiffness [N/mm] 23.64 ± 13.70 25.66 ± 13.28 0.657UTS [MPa] 4.60 ± 2.36 5.45 ± 2.55 0.306Elastic modulus [Mpa] 33.65 ± 18.52 33.67 ± 17.13 0.977Elongation at UTS (%) 32.33 ± 5.28 53.70 ± 12.99 < 0.001
UTL = ultimate tensile load. UTS = ultimate tensile stress. Values are given as the mean and the standard deviation of the mean. P values were calculated using Student t test (tw-tailed, equal variances) or Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test if normaility failed.
134
CHAPTER 5
THE EFFECT OF CYCLIC STRAIN ON THE TENSILE PROPERTIES OF A
NATURALLY-DERIVED, DECELLULARIZED TENDON SCAFFOLD SEEDED
WITH ALLOGENEIC TENOCYTES AND ASSOCIATED MRNA EXPRESSION
Patrick W. Whitlock 1,2, Thorsten M Seyler 1,2, Casey Northam1, Thomas L. Smith1,2,
Gary G. Poehling1,2, L. Andrew Koman1,2, Mark E. Van Dyke2
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Medical
Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27157
2Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Medical
Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27157
135
The following manuscript was published in the Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances
September 1st, 2013 (Vol. 22 #3). This chapter is reprinted with permission. Stylistic
variations are due to the requirements of the journal. Thorsten M. Seyler made substantial
contributions to the conception of the work and all experiments. Participated in the
acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for all experiments. Drafting the work and
revising it critically for important intellectual content including final approval of the
version to be published. He is accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that
questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately
investigated and resolved. He shared first authorship with Dr. Whitlock who served as
corresponding author.
136
ABSTRACT
Background
Naturally-derived tendon scaffolds have the potential to improve the treatment of flexor
tendon injuries.
Methods
Seeded and unseeded tendon scaffolds were maintained in the presence or absence of
physiologic strain for seven days. After seven days, the tensile properties and associated
mRNA expression were compared.
Results
Seeded scaffolds maintained in the absence of strain had significantly lower tensile
properties than unseeded tendons and fresh-frozen tendons. The loss of tensile properties
was associated with elevated MMP-2 and Collagen III expression. Tensile properties of
seeded scaffolds maintained in the presence of strain for 7 days after seeding did not
differ from those of fresh-frozen tendons.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates that the tensile properties of seeded, naturally-derived tendon
scaffolds will degrade rapidly in the absence of cyclic strain. Seeded scaffolds used for
tendon reconstruction should be maintained under cyclic strain to maintain essential
tensile properties.
137
INTRODUCTION
Tendons are dense connective tissues connecting muscle to bone, which transmit
tensile loads generated by muscles to produce joint movement [1-4]. Acute tendon injuries
typically occur after trauma, whereas chronic injuries often arise from repetitive
mechanical stress and/or degeneration. With regard to flexor tendon injuries of the hand,
clinical outcomes following surgery remain suboptimal [5-8]. Severe flexor tendon injuries
are difficult to manage surgically and may require graft material to bridge large defects [9-
11]. A major problem in flexor tendon repair is the lack of suitable graft material for
surgical reconstruction [12]. Graft materials that have been used include autografts,
allografts, and prosthetic substitutes [13]. Whereas immune rejection remains a cause of
concern when using tendon allografts, most prosthetic substitutes also fail to achieve
satisfactory long-term tendon function and, therefore, autologous grafts continue to be the
“gold standard” [13]. However, autologous grafts are traditionally limited to the palmaris
longus, plantaris and foot extensor tendons. Tissue engineering seeks to address the
limitations of each of these graft materials by implanting biologically compatible substrates
with or without cells in place of injured tendons to eliminate the concerns associated with
the use of autografts (limited availability, donor site morbidity, increased surgical time),
allografts (immunogenicity, disease transmission, excess inflammation) and prosthetic
substitutes (functionality, cytotoxic breakdown products, limited longevity) [13-15].
Current tissue-engineering strategies for flexor digitorum profundus reconstruction have
relied predominantly upon scaffolds made from synthetic (polyglycolic acid) and natural
(collagen) materials to form the cell-scaffold construct. However, synthetic scaffolds
produce breakdown products that are potentially antimitotic and cytotoxic in vivo [16].
138
Furthermore, early range of motion is considered essential to the rehabilitation and success
of flexor tendon repairs. A delay in early range of motion is associated with subsequent
adhesion formation, decreased range of motion, and poor functional outcomes
[13,14,17,18]. Tissue-engineered tendons produced in vitro or via self-assembly are
significantly weaker than native adult tendons and would not be expected to withstand
current rehabilitation protocols after implantation [16,19,20].
Several genes have been implicated in the remodeling and maturation of tendons in
vivo and in vitro. Collagen I and III have been shown to be upregulated in cells seeded on
scaffolds, but this increase in expression was not observed until Day 14 [21]. MMP-2
(matrix metalloproteinase-2) has been implicated in the initiation and progression of
collagen fibril growth, matrix assembly, and tendon development [22]. The overexpression
of MMP-2 has been associated with observed altered collagen fibril structure and tendon
organization during development [23,24]. Tenomodulin, a type II trans-membrane protein,
has been identified as a late marker for tendon formation and tenocyte differentiation [25].
Therefore, the effect of cyclic strain upon the expression of these genes by cells seeded in
naturally-derived tendon scaffolds is of significant interest and may aid not only in the
optimization of structural and material properties of cell-seeded scaffolds, but also the
mechanisms involved in tendon injury, repair and healing.
Little is known about the effect of mechanical strain on the tensile properties and mRNA
expression of seeded, decellularized tendon scaffolds. We previously described the
development and characterization of a novel, architecturally-optimized, biocompatible,
decellularized and oxidized scaffold derived from avian flexor digitorum profundus tendon
[28]. The goal of this study was to determine the effect of the absence or presence of cyclic
139
strain upon the tensile properties of flexor digitorum profundus (FDP)-derived tendon
scaffolds seeded with allogeneic tenocytes, and the mRNA expression of genes of interest
by the seeded cells. We hypothesized that the tensile properties (ultimate tensile stress,
modulus, stiffness) of seeded scaffolds maintained in the presence of strain would be
greater than those of seeded scaffolds maintained in the absence of strain and that the
difference would be associated with a difference in the mRNA expression by seeded cells.
140
MATERIAL & METHODS
The feet of 56-day-old Leghorn chickens were provided at no cost by Wayne Farms
(Dobson, NC), placed on ice immediately after receipt, and stored at 4°C until dissection.
The feet were cleaned and disinfected using aseptic techniques. The intrasynovial portion
of the FDP tendon (ca. 60 mm x 3 mm x1 mm) was harvested from the proximal portion
of the proximal phalanx to its distal insertion on the distal phalanx of the long digit and
prepared according to the previously published protocol [26]. Briefly, immediately after
harvest, FDP tendons were transferred under aseptic conditions to individual clean,
autoclaved, 100 ml glass, screw-top bottles (Gibco, Grand Island, NY). One hundred
milliliters of DNase-free/RNase-free, distilled water was added to each sample. The bottle
was placed onto a rotating shaker (Barnstead MaxQ400, Dubuque, IA) at 200 r.p.m., 37°C,
for 24 h. After 24 h, the water was discarded and the cycle was repeated. At the conclusion
of the second cycle, the water was discarded and 100 ml of 0.05% trypsin-EDTA (Gibco,
Grand Island, NY) was added. The sample was placed onto the rotating shaker at 200
r.p.m., 37°C for 1 h. At the end of the cycle, the trypsin solution was discarded and 100 ml
of Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) high-glucose (Gibco, Grand Island, NY)
containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (Valley Labs, Winchester, VA) and 100 IU/ml
penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 0.25 μg/ml amphotercin B (Gibco, Grand Island, NY)
was added in order to halt trypsin digestion of the sample and maintain an aseptic
preparation. The sample was placed back onto the rotary shaker at 200 r.p.m., 37°C, for 24
h. After 24 h, the DMEM–FBS solution was discarded and 100 ml of the DNase-
free/RNase-free distilled water was added and the sample was placed onto the rotary shaker
at 200 r.p.m., 37°C for 24 h. The water wash was discarded and 100 ml of 1.5% peracetic
141
acid (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) solution with 2.0% Triton X-100 (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) in
distilled, deionized water (diH2O) was added and the sample was placed onto the rotary
shaker at 200 r.p.m., 37°C for 4 h. The solution was discarded and two 100 ml washes with
diH2O were performed, each for 12 h at 37°C and 200 r.p.m. on the rotary shaker. At the
end of the second wash, the sample was removed and placed into a clean, sterile 15 ml
conical tube and frozen for 24 h at −80°C. The scaffold then was lyophilized (Labconco,
Freeze Dry System, Kansas City, MO) for 24 h before being returned to the freezer and
stored at −80°C until further use. These samples are hereafter referred to as scaffolds.
Three fresh long digit tendons, one each from three Leghorn chickens were
aseptically harvested, and all of the soft tissue attachments and synovium were debrided.
The tendons then were placed immediately into sterile Dulbecco’s phosphate buffered
saline (DPBS, Sigma, St. Louis, MO) containing 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 µg/ml
streptomycin, and 0.25 µg/ml amphotercin B solution on ice. Tendons then were minced
and transferred to 10 cm tissue culture plastic plates. Tenocyte culture media (DMEM high-
glucose, 10% FBS, 1% L-glutamine, 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 µg/ml streptomycin, 0.25
µg/ml amphotercin B, and 25 mg of L-ascorbic acid/500 ml media) then was added to the
minced tendon. The tissue culture plates were covered and left undisturbed in an incubator
at 37°C, 5% CO2 for seven days, during which a mixed population of allogeneic tendon-
derived cells, containing tenocytes, migrated out of the fresh tissue and adhered to the
bottom of the plates. After 7 days, cells from the three plates were trypsinized with 0.05%
Trypsin-EDTA (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) at 37°C, 5% CO2 for five minutes. The minced
tissue was removed and the resulting cell suspension was centrifuged at 1,500 x g for 5
minutes. The supernatant was discarded and the cell pellet was re-suspended in 12 ml of
142
tenocyte culture media and re-plated onto 15 cm tissue culture plastic plates and allowed
to grow to 75% confluency. This process was performed for a total of 4 passages in order
to produce sufficient cells for seeding of scaffolds. Passage four cells from all three donors
were pooled prior to seeding of scaffolds. Six scaffolds, prepared as previously described,
were placed in individual sterile plastic tissue culture plates. Scaffolds then were
equilibrated in 70% ethanol in diH2O at 4°C for 24 hours to improve surface
wettability/decrease the surface tension on/within the scaffolds in order to minimize
agglomeration and maximize penetration of seeded cells. Un-seeded scaffolds were
prepared similarly. Scaffolds then were rinsed copiously with media, transferred to fresh
sterile tissue culture plates and covered with tenocyte media and equilibrated at 37°C, 5%
CO2 for 24 hours. Scaffolds then were removed and placed in fresh sterile tissue culture
plates and allowed to stand at room temperature for approximately one hour to remove
excess media. Scaffolds were seeded using a pipette (Eppendorf, Research 2100 Model
1000 µl, Westbury, NY) with 300 µl of a 10.0 X 106 cells/ml solution of the cells in media
applied in a dropwise fashion along the length of the scaffolds. The scaffolds then were
completely wetted by the media and allowed to equilibrate for 120 minutes at 37°C, 5%
CO2. The scaffolds then were rotated 180 degrees upon the circumferential axis of the
tendon and seeded with an additional 300 µl of the same cell suspension on their opposite
side. The seeded scaffolds were incubated at 37°C, 5% CO2 for 48 hours, undisturbed.
Following 48 hours of incubation, the seeded scaffolds were trimmed to a length of 30 mm.
A total of six seeded (SEEDED T7 No Strain) and six unseeded scaffolds (UNSEEDED T7
No Strain) were maintained in a 15 cm tissue culture dish in the absence of strain. Six
seeded scaffolds were maintained under cyclic mechanical strain in a commercially
143
available bioreactor (SEEDED T7 5% Strain BioRx). Media was changed in all samples
every 48 hours. Six unseeded control scaffolds were maintained under cyclic mechanical
strain to serve as controls to determine if application of cyclic strain alone would cause a
change in tensile properties due to fber alignment and loss of the “toe” region of the load-
elongation curve (UNSEEDED T7 5% Strain BioRx).
A commercially available DynaGen™ bioreactor system (Tissue Growth
Technologies, Minnetonka, MN) was used to apply cyclic strain to the seeded scaffolds.
Briefly, the DynaGen™ bioreactor system consisted of a TC-20 single axis displacement
simulator that can apply a maximum force of 20N and three L30-1C LigaGen™ bioreactor
chambers. Seeded scaffolds were held in place by two customized mechanical clamps. The
position of the upper clamp was controlled by the motor while the lower clamp was
stationary. GrowthWorks™ software was used to control the TC-20 single axis
displacement actuators and collect data. In the experimental setting, all bioreactor
specimens (5% Strain BioRx) were exposed to a constant, sinusoidal 5% mechanical strain
at 1Hz for one hour per day, for a total of seven days, in a stable environment of 37oC,
95% relative humidity, 5% CO2.
Tensile testing of fresh-frozen avian FDP tendons (n=8), unseeded scaffolds
maintained in the absence of strain (UNSEEDED T7 No Strain), (n=6), scaffolds seeded
with allogeneic cells and maintained in the absence of strain (SEEDED T7 No Strain),
(n=6), unseeded scaffolds maintained in the bioreactor under cyclic mechanical strain
(UNSEEDED T7 5% Strain BioRx), (n=6), as well as scaffolds seeded with the same
allogeneic cells and maintained in the bioreactor under cyclic mechanical strain (SEEDED
T7 5% Strain BioRx), (n=6) was performed. Additionally, un-seeded (n=6) and seeded
144
scaffolds (n=6) were tested after their initial 48h incubation (UNSEEDED T0 No Strain [48
hrs], SEEDED T0 No Strain [48 hrs]) to determine the baseline tensile properties of both,
the un-seeded scaffolds, and the seeded scaffolds 48h after seeding. Fresh-frozen FDP
tendons were removed from storage at −80°C and allowed to equilibrate in sterile DPBS
at 37°C for 30 minutes. Immediately prior to testing, fresh-frozen tendons and un-
seeded/seeded scaffolds were cut into “dogbone” specimens using a custom made punch
(Freeman, Fremont, OH), their ends were wrapped with saline-soaked gauze which
completely eliminated slippage at the tendon-grip interface, and they were placed into
custom made grips on an uniaxial load frame (Instron 5544, Needham, MA) for tensile
testing. Samples were measured prior to testing with digital calipers to determine the
individual cross-sectional area of each sample (~1 mm2) and length (15 mm). Tendons
were pre-loaded to 0.1 N, and then pre-conditioned 10 times to 0.1mm extension prior to
being loaded to failure at a rate of 10 mm/min (strain rate of 1.11%/s). Tendons were kept
moist during testing with a mist of DPBS. Ultimate tensile stress (UTS, MPa) at break was
calculated using the maximal load (N) recorded during each test and cross-sectional area
of each specimen measured immediately prior to testing. Young’s modulus (Y, MPa) and
Stiffness (S, N/mm) were calculated from the linear portion of stress–strain curves
generated from the load and displacement data obtained from the instrument and the cross-
sectional area of each specimen measured immediately prior to testing.
At T0 [48 hrs], and after 7 days in the presence or absence of cyclic strain (T7),
seeded scaffolds were rinsed with fresh media, dried briefly, then frozen in liquid nitrogen,
and the total RNA was extracted with Trireagent (Ambion, Austin, TX). Quantity and
purity of the RNA was assessed with a NanoDrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer (Nano-
145
Drop Technologies, Wilmington, DE). The mRNA was transcribed to cDNA using random
hexamers (Invitrogen) and Superscript II (Invitrogen). Taqman1 gene expression assays
(Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) were used to perform quantitative real-time
polymerase chain reaction (qRTPCR). Probed sequences included gallus gallus Collagen
I, Collagen III, MMP-2, and Tenomodulin. Relative quantification (DD-CT) RTPCR was
performed on an Applied Biosystems 7900HT. GAPDH was used as the endogenous
control and was constant throughout samples. Data were normalized to the average of the
T0 [48 hrs] samples for simplification of presentation.
The results of tensile testing and mRNA expression were collected and recorded in
a spreadsheet. For statistical analysis, the mean and standard error of the mean (SEM) of
investigated variables were calculated. To test if any statistical differences existed between
the tensile properties among the different groups, a one-way ANOVA and post hoc testing
using the Holm-Sidak method was used. To test if any statistical differences in mRNA
expression existed among the different groups, an unpaired Student’s t-test with unequal
variance was used. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All
calculations were performed using SigmaStat Version 3.5 (Systat Software, San Jose, CA).
Results
Tensile Testing
The failure site of all samples during tensile testing occurred within the
midsubstance portion of the specimen and no disruption or slippage occurred at the
interface between the clamp and tendon. Therefore, none of the specimens had to be
excluded from the tensile testing. Ultimate tensile stress (UTS), Young’s modulus (Y), and
stiffness (S) were calculated for all samples (Table 1). UTS, Y, and S of the un-seeded
146
scaffolds maintained in the absence of strain for 48 hours (UNSEEDED T0 No Strain [48
hrs]) was not significantly different than that of either the un-seeded scaffolds maintained
in the absence of strain for 7 days (UNSEEDED T7 No Strain), the un-seeded scaffolds
maintained under cyclic strain in the bioreactor for 7 days (UNSEEDED T7 5% Strain
BioRx), or the fresh-frozen FDP tendons (Figure 1A, C, E). There was also no significant
difference in tensile properties between all unseeded scaffolds and the seeded scaffolds
maintained under cyclic strain at 7 days (SEEDED T7 5% Strain BioRx). Similarly, no
significant difference in the observed modulus or the observed stiffness of seeded scaffolds
maintained under strain for 7 days (SEEDED T7 5% Strain BioRx) was observed when
compared to fresh-frozen FDP tendons (Figure 1B, D). A significantly lower ultimate
tensile stress was observed for seeded scaffolds maintained under cyclic strain for 7 days
(SEEDED T7 5% Strain BioRx) when compared to fresh-frozen FDP tendons (Figure 1F).
A significant difference was found between the UTS, modulus, and stiffness of both the
seeded scaffolds maintained in the absence of cyclic strain after 48h of incubation
(SEEDED T0 No Strain [48 hrs]), and the seeded scaffolds maintained in the absence of
cyclic strain after 7 days (SEEDED T7 No Strain) when compared to the fresh-frozen FDP
tendons and the seeded scaffolds maintained under cyclic strain after 7 days in culture
(SEEDED T7 5% Strain BioRx), (Figure 1B, D, F).
mRNA Expression
No significant difference in the expression of Collagen I by seeded cells was
observed among any group at any time point (Figure 2A). Collagen III expression was
significantly lower in seeded scaffolds maintained under cyclic strain at day 7 (SEEDED
T7 5% Strain BioRx) when compared to seeded scaffolds at T0 (Figure 2B). Expression of
147
Collagen III in seeded scaffolds after 7 days in the absence of cyclic strain (SEEDED T7
No Strain) was also greater than that observed for seeded scaffolds maintained under cyclic
strain at day 7 (SEEDED T7 5% Strain BioRx), but the difference was not statistically
significant (Figure 2B). There was no significant difference in Collagen III expression of
seeded scaffolds at T0 (SEEDED T0 No Strain [48 hrs]) and seeded scaffolds analyzed after
7 days in the absence of cyclic strain (SEEDED T7 No Strain), (Figure 2B). MMP-2
expression was significantly higher in seeded scaffolds at T0 (SEEDED T0 No Strain [48
hrs]) when compared to seeded scaffolds after 7 days in the absence of cyclic strain
(SEEDED T7 No Strain), (Figure 2C). No significant difference was observed for MMP-2
expression between seeded scaffolds maintained under cyclic strain at day 7 (SEEDED T7
5% Strain BioRx) and seeded scaffolds after 7 days in the absence of cyclic strain
(SEEDED T7 No Strain), (Figure 2C). A lower level of MMP-2 expression was observed
in seeded scaffolds maintained under cyclic strain at day 7 (SEEDED T7 5% Strain BioRx)
when compared to seeded scaffolds at T0 (SEEDED T0 No Strain [48 hrs]), p=0.08 (Figure
2C). A significant increase in tenomodulin expression in seeded scaffolds maintained under
cyclic strain at day 7 (SEEDED T7 5% Strain BioRx) was observed in comparison to seeded
scaffolds at T0 (SEEDED T0 No Strain [48 hrs]), (Figure 2D). No significant difference in
tenomodulin expression was observed between seeded scaffolds at T0 (SEEDED T0 No
Strain [48 hrs]) and seeded scaffolds after 7 days in the absence of cyclic strain (SEEDED
T7 No Strain), (Figure 2D). No significant difference was observed for tenomodulin
expression between seeded scaffolds maintained under cyclic strain at day 7 (SEEDED T7
5% Strain BioRx) and seeded scaffolds after 7 days in the absence of cyclic strain
(SEEDED T7 No Strain), (Figure 2C).
148
DISCUSSION
Currently, there is no optimal graft choice for the repair of flexor tendon injuries,
especially those requiring multiple tendon reconstructions. We have previously described
the development of a decellularized, biocompatible, architecturally-optimized scaffold
derived from avian flexor digitorum profundus tendon suitable for flexor tendon
reconstruction [26]. The present study describes the seeding of allogeneic tenocytes onto
that scaffold and the resulting tensile properties of seeded scaffolds and associated cellular
mRNA expression of seeded cells after culture of seeded scaffolds in the presence or
absence of cyclic strain.
The tensile properties of seeded scaffolds decreased significantly as quickly as 48
hours after seeding in the absence of strain. A significantly higher level of MMP-2
expression was observed in seeded scaffolds at 48 hours compared to 7 days when scaffolds
were maintained without cyclic strain. Scaffolds in the presence of cyclic strain exhibited
a lower level of MMP-2 expression, albeit not significantly lower (p=0.08), after 7 days in
comparison to seeded scaffolds 48 hours after seeding. No difference in MMP-2 expression
was observed between seeded scaffolds maintained in the presence or absence of cyclic
strain after 7 days. MMP-2 is a matrix metalloproteinase that has a well-established role
in the remodeling and development of tendons [22-24]. Therefore, increased expression of
this gelatinase may play a role in the initial degradation of tensile properties observed in
scaffolds in the first 48 hours following seeding. Others have found that after an initial
degradation in tensile properties in “under-stimulated” tenocyte seeded scaffolds, peak
stresses can be restored by the addition of protease inhibitors or mechanical loading [27].
Similarly, our results suggest a protease-mediated degradation of tensile properties that
149
occurs quickly after seeding in the setting of inadequate mechanical stimulation. However,
a firm conclusion cannot be made that elevated MMP-2 expression in the absence of
mechanical strain is directly responsible, as differences in expression between the seeded
scaffolds maintained in the absence of cyclic strain for 7 days and that of the seeded
scaffolds after maintenance under cyclic strain at 7 days did not reach statistical
significance. Rather we postulate that there is an initial increase in MMP-2 expression
within 48 hours after seeding in the absence of mechanical stimulation that takes place and
is possibly responsible for the initial degradation of tensile properties.
An increased level of Collagen III expression was observed in scaffolds 48 hours
after seeding when compared to scaffolds maintained under cyclic strain after 7 days.
Collagen III is associated with scar formation during tendon healing as well as the
decreased tensile properties associated with scar tissue [28]. No difference in the level of
Collagen I expression was observed between any group, consistent with prior studies [21].
Therefore, the higher level of Collagen III expression may represent a shift towards the
formation of scar initially after seeding which is decreased significantly after exposure to
cyclic strain, leading to the observed recovery of tensile properties similar to those
observed by others [28]. Tensile properties observed for seeded scaffolds maintained in the
absence of cyclic strain for 7 days were unchanged from those observed 48 hours after
seeding. Again, these results support the initial formation of inferior tissue in the absence
of strain, or rather degradation of the scaffold, which does not appear to be reversed in the
absence of strain after 7 days, consistent with prior results for other scaffolds [27].
The tensile properties of the seeded scaffolds were restored so that no statistically
significant difference was observed when compared to unseeded scaffolds. Similarly, the
150
modulus and stiffness of seeded scaffolds maintained under cyclic strain for 7 days were
not significantly different from those of fresh-frozen tendons. Tenomodulin is a marker for
tenocytes and late tendon formation [25]. A significantly higher level of tenomodulin
expression by cells seeded in scaffolds maintained under cyclic strain for 7 days was
observed in comparison to cells 48 hours after seeding in the absence of cyclic strain. The
increased expression of this gene, in association with the observed restoration of tensile
properties, provides evidence that seeded cells and seeded scaffolds undergo a process that
results in a tissue-engineered construct that more closely resembles native tendon when
compared to seeded scaffolds at early time points and cultured for longer time points in the
absence of strain. Again, a firm conclusion cannot be made that elevated tenomodulin
expression is a direct result of the presence of mechanical strain. Differences in expression
between the seeded scaffolds maintained in the absence and presence of cyclic strain for 7
days did not reach statistical significance. However, an elevated level of expression was
observed in seeded scaffolds after exposure to mechanical strain that was not observed in
the seeded scaffolds maintained in its absence. Therefore, it is possible that, after seeding
in an unstrained environment, seeded cells exposed to subsequent strain began to express
the specific tenocyte marker, tenomodulin, indicating a possible cellular shift in gene
expression toward a more tendon-like phenotype temporally associated with a restoration
of tensile properties. Further studies investigating the cellular and molecular events
associated with remodeling of seeded, decellularized scaffolds are warranted to fully
elucidate this process.
One limitation of the present study is that we focused on the tensile properties of
graft remodeling to the exclusion of compositional changes. However, ongoing
151
investigations in our laboratory are analyzing changes in collagen, proteoglycans and ultra-
structure of seeded scaffolds. The allogeneic cell population used for seeding likely
contains cells other than tenocytes and may have influenced the observed expression of
genes of interest. Cell contamination by mixed-population cells isolated from tendon
explants cultures and phenotypic drift of isolated cells may have also contributed to the
observed pattern of mRNA expression by seeded cells. Similarly, plausible that the
transduction of mechanical signals may decrease as strain decreases from its maximum at
cells seeded within and on the immediate surface of the scaffold to those at its periphery.
Thus, the contribution of the mechanically-stimulated cells in the matrix and on the surface
of the scaffold may be affected by the cells at the periphery which receive diminished
mechanical signals necessary for altered gene expression.
Another limitation of the study is that all specimens were subjected to one cyclic
stretching regimen. This regimen was based on an extensive literature review and was
designed to closely approximate in vivo conditions associated with loads experienced in
vivo by the donor species and by the loads present in the linear portion of the stress-strain
curve of the scaffold [26, 29-32]. Physiologic strain of tendons and ligaments has been
shown to occur between 2-5% at a level that is equivalent to less than 25% of the ultimate
tensile stress [33,34]. As previously stated, it is likely that not all cells are subjected to the
same strain. Therefore, we chose to base our regimen on 125% of the maximal allowable
physiologic strain that could be applied without theoretical damage to tendon fiber bundles
in order to produce an effect on seeded cells [35]. Lastly, it has been noted that the accuracy
of cross-sectional measurement by digital calipers may be less than that of non-contact
methods such as a laser micrometry. Woo et al. have shown that for homogenous,
152
rectangular specimens, such as those analyzed in our study, the accuracy of digital calipers
is acceptable when compared to that obtained using laser micrometer or other non-contact
methods [36].
We have previously shown that our scaffold is decellularized to decrease
inflammation, has increased porosity to promote cellular infiltration and influx of nutrients,
is cyto-compatible in vitro and in vivo, and can be easily derived from a readily available
source [26]. Such a scaffold, possibly derived from human allograft or xenograft sources,
would be potentially useful for the treatment of tendon injuries, especially those associated
with trauma or tumor where sufficient quantities of autograft may not be available for
reconstruction.
Absence of mechanical strain and exercise in patients are known to be associated
with a loss of tensile properties in vivo. The present study shows that seeded tendon
scaffolds are associated with an initial loss of tensile properties soon after seeding in vitro.
However, tensile properties can be restored in the presence of cyclic strain. Therefore,
seeded and unseeded scaffolds that are to be implanted in vivo should be maintained in the
presence of cyclic strain to prevent degradation by either seeded cells or infiltrating host
cells. Failure to initiate early motion may result in a delay in return of function or possible
implant failure.
Lastly, although no significant improvement in the tensile properties of our scaffold was
observed after seeding with allogeneic cells and mechanical strain in vitro, bioreactor
preconditioning may still prove useful once constructs are implanted in vivo. Bioreactor
preconditioning may allow for preservation or even optimization of the biologic and tensile
153
properties of autologous cell-seeded scaffolds prior to implantation, potentially allowing
more rapid in vivo incorporation and remodeling.
154
CONCLUSIONS
The effect of cyclic strain upon the tensile properties and mRNA expression of a
cell-seeded tendon scaffold potentially suitable for flexor tendon reconstruction was
investigated. The observed results demonstrate that tensile properties of cell-seeded
scaffolds decrease significantly within 48 hours after introducing the cells, in the absence
of mechanical strain. The decrease is associated with elevated MMP-2 and collagen III
expression by seeded cells. MMP-2 is associated with tendon degradation and collagen III
is associated with inferior tensile properties when compared to collagen I, the dominant
collagen in tendons. Tensile properties were restored in the presence of physiologic
mechanical strain, but not in its absence. The restoration of tensile properties was
associated with increased levels of tenomodulin expression by seeded cells. Tenomodulin
is a specific marker for tenocytes and thus, based on mRNA expression and tensile testing,
the construct more closely resembles native tendon after mechanical stimulation.
In the absence of mechanical strain, tensile properties of seeded, decellularized
tendon scaffolds degrade rapidly and are never recovered. However, in the presence of
mechanical strain, the seeded scaffolds are able to re-gain their tensile properties and more
closely resembles native tendon. Therefore, if decellularized tendon scaffolds are to be
used in vivo in the presence of autologous cells, scaffolds should be maintained in the
presence of mechanical strain in vitro and in vivo to optimize function after implantation.
155
COMPETING INTERESTS
PWW and MEV have been issued an allowance of claims on US Patent Application No.
11/738,258. This patent describes the method of production of the acellular scaffold used
in this manuscript. GGP is a consultant for MTF®. An unrestricted, educational grant from
Smith & Nephew® was provided to PWW, TMS and GGP during completion of this
manuscript.
156
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors and this work were supported by an educational grant by Smith & Nephew
(PWW, TMS, GGP), a Resident Clinician Scientist Training Grant from the Orthopaedic
Research and Education Foundation (PWW, LAK), and a Resident Clinician Scientist
Training Grant from the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation to Dr. Seyler.
Use of the DynaGen bioreactor system was generously provided by Tissue Growth
Technologies.
157
REFERENCES
1. Sharma P, Maffulli N: Tendon injury and tendinopathy: healing and repair. J Bone
Joint Surg Am 2005, 87:187-202
2. Lin TW, Cardenas L, Soslowsky LJ: Biomechanics of tendon injury and repair. J
Biomech 2004, 37: 865-877
3. Benjamin M, and Ralphs JR: The cell and developmental biology of tendons and
ligaments. Int Rev Cytol 2000, 196:85-130
4. Kannus P, Josza L, and Jarvinnen M: Basic science of tendons. In Principles and
Practice of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine. Edited by Garrett WE, Speer KP, and
Kirkendall DT. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins;
2000:21-37.
5. Strickland JW: Flexor tendon repair. Hand Clin 1985, 155-168
6. Strickland JW: Development of flexor tendon surgery: twenty-five years of
progress. J Hand Surg Am 2000, 25:214-235
7. Tang JB: Clinical outcomes associated with flexor tendon repair. Hand Clin 2005,
21:199-210
8. Hasslund S, Jacobson JA, Dadali T, Basile P, Ulrich-Vinther M, Soballe K, Schwarz
EM, O'Keefe RJ, Mitten DJ, and Awad HA: Adhesions in a murine flexor tendon
graft model: Autograft versus allograft reconstruction. J Orthop Res 2008, 26:824-
833
9. Leversedge FJ, Zelouf D, Williams C, Gelberman RH, and Seiler JG III: Flexor
tendon grafting to the hand: an assessment of the intrasynovial donor tendon-A
preliminary single-cohort study. J Hand Surg Am 2000, 25:721-730
158
10. Strickland JW: Flexor tendon surgery. Part 2: Free tendon grafts and tenolysis. J
Hand Surg Br 1989, 14:368-382
11. Zhang AY, and Chang J: Tissue engineering of flexor tendons. Clin Plast Surg
2003, 30:565-572
12. Costa MA, Wu C, Pham BV, Chong AK, Pham HM, and Chang J: Tissue
engineering of flexor tendons: optimization of tenocyte proliferation using growth
factor supplementation. Tissue Eng 2006, 12:1937-1943
13. Cao Y, Liu Y, Liu W, Shan Q, Buonocore SD, and Cui L: Bridging tendon defects
using autologous tenocyte engineered tendon in a hen model. Plast Reconstr Surg
2002, 110:1280-1289
14. Liu W, Chen B, Deng D, Xu F, Cui L, and Cao Y: Repair of tendon defect with
dermal fibroblast engineered tendon in a porcine model. Tissue Eng 2006, 12:775-
788
15. Derwin KA, Baker AR, Spragg RK, Leigh DR, Iannotti JP: Commercial
extracellular matrix scaffolds for rotator cuff tendon repair: Biomechanical,
biochemical and cellular properties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006, 88: 2665-2672
16. Garvin J, Qi J, Maloney M, Banes AJ: Novel system for engineering of bioartificial
tendons and application of mechanical load. Tissue Eng 2003, 9: 967-979
17. Buckwalter JA: Effects of early range of motion on healing of musculoskeletal
tissues. Hand Clin 1996, 12:13-24
18. Buckwalter JA: vs. rest in the treatment of bone, soft tissue and joint injuries. Iowa
Orthop J 1995, 15:29-42
159
19. Cao D, Wei L, Wei X, Xu F, Cui L, Cao Y: In vitro tendon engineering with avian
tenocytes and polyglycolic acids: a preliminary report. Tissue Eng 2006, 12: 1369-
1377
20. Calve S, Dennis RG, Kosnik PE 2nd, Baar K, Grosh K, Arruda EM: Engineering
of functional tendon. Tissue Eng 2004, 10:755-761
21. Altman GH, Horan RL, Martin I, Farhadi J, Stark PR, Volloch V, Richmond JC,
Vunjak-Novakovic G, Kaplan DL: Cell differentiation by mechanical stress.
FASEB J 2002, 16:270-272
22. Jung JC, Wang PX, Zhang G, Ezura Y, Fini ME, Birk DE: Collagen fibril growth
during chicken tendon development:matrix metalloproteinase-2 and its activation.
Cell Tissue Res 2009, 336:79-89
23. Kyriakides TR, Zhu YH, Smith LT, Bain SD, Yang Z, Lin MT,Danielson KG,
Iozzo RV, LaMarca M, McKinney CE, Ginns EI, Bornstein P: Mice that lack
thrombospondin 2 display connective tissue abnormalities that are associated with
disordered collagen fibrillogenesis, an increased vascular density, and a bleeding
diathesis. J Cell Biol 1998, 140:419-430
24. Yang Z, Kyriakides TR, Bornstein P: Matricellular proteins as modulators of cell-
matrix interactions: adhesive defect in thrombospondin 2-null fibroblasts is a
consequence of increased levels of matrix metalloproteinase-2. Mol Biol Cell 2000,
11:3353-3364
25. Shukunami C, Takimoto A, Oro M, Hiraki Y: Scleraxis positively regulates the
expression of tenomodulin, a differentiation marker of tenocytes. Developmental
Biology 2006, 298: 234–247
160
26. Whitlock PW, Smith TL, Poehling GG, Shilt JS, and Van Dyke ME: A naturally
derived, cytocompatible, and architecturally optimized scaffold for tendon and
ligament regeneration. Biomaterials 2007, 28:4321-4329
27. Cousineau-Pelletier P, Langelier E: Relative contributions of mechanical
degradation, enzymatic degradation, and repair of the extracellular matrix on the
response of tendons to under- and over-stimultaions in vitro. J Orthop Res 2009,
28: 204-210
28. Birk DE, and Mayne R: Localization of collagen types I, III and V during tendon
development. Changes in collagen types I and III are correlated with changes in
fibril diameter. Eur J Cell Biol 1997, 72:352-361
29. Butler DL, Goldstein SA, Guilak F: Functional tissue engineering: the role of
biomechanics. J Biomech Eng 2000, 122:570-575
30. Butler DL, Juncosa-Melvin N, Boivin GP, Galloway MT, Shearn JT, Gooch C,
Awad H: Functional tissue engineering for tendon repair: A multidisciplinary
strategy using mesenchymal stem cells, bioscaffolds, and mechanical stimulation.
J Orthop Res 2008, 26:1-9
31. Freed LE, Guilak F, Guo XE, Gray ML, Tranquillo R, Holmes JW, Radisic M,
Sefton MV, Kaplan D, and Vunjak-Novakovic G: Advanced tools for tissue
engineering: scaffolds, bioreactors, and signaling. Tissue Eng 2006, 12: 3285-3305
32. Vunjak-Novakovic G, Altman G, Horan R, Kaplan DL: Tissue engineering of
ligaments. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2004, 6:131-156
33. Butler DL, Grood ES, Noyes FR: Biomechanics of ligaments and tendons. Exerc
Sport Sci Rev 1978, 6: 125-181
161
34. Fung YCB. Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissues. New York:
Springer-Verlag; 1981:222.
35. Kear M, Smith RN: A method for recording tendon strain in sheep during
locomotion. Acta Orthop Scand 1975, 46: 896-905
36. Woo SL, Danto MI, Ohland KJ, Lee TQ, Newton PO: The use of laser micrometer
system to determine the cross-sectional shape and area of ligaments: a comparative
study with two existing methods. J Biomech Eng 1990, 112:426-431
162
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Tensile Properties (A), Young’s modulus of UNSEEDED scaffolds after 48 hour initial culture (T0 No Strain [48 hrs]), 7 days in culture in the absence of cyclic strain (T7 No Strain), 7 days in culture in the presence of cyclic strain (T7 5% Strain BioRx) and fresh-frozen FDP tendons; (C), Stiffness of UNSEEDED scaffolds after 48 hour initial culture (T0 No Strain [48 hrs]), 7 days in culture in the absence of cyclic strain (T7 No Strain), 7 days in culture in the presence of cyclic strain (T7 5% Strain BioRx) and fresh-frozen FDP tendons; (E), Ultimate Tensile Stress of UNSEEDED scaffolds after 48 hour initial culture (T0 No Strain [48 hrs]), 7 days in culture in the absence of cyclic strain (T7 No Strain), 7 days in culture in the presence of cyclic strain (T7 5% Strain BioRx) and fresh-frozen FDP tendons. (B), Young’s modulus of SEEDED scaffolds after 48 hour initial culture (T0 No Strain [48 hrs]), 7 days in culture in the absence of cyclic strain (T7 No Strain), 7 days in culture in the presence of cyclic strain (T7 5% Strain BioRx) and fresh-frozen FDP tendons; (D), Stiffness of SEEDED scaffolds after 48 hour initial culture (T0 No Strain [48 hrs]), 7 days in culture in the absence of cyclic strain (T7 No Strain), 7 days in culture in the presence of cyclic strain (T7 5% Strain BioRx) and fresh-frozen FDP tendons; (F), Ultimate Tensile Stress of SEEDED scaffolds after 48 hour initial culture (T0 No Strain [48 hrs]), 7 days in culture in the absence of cyclic strain (T7 No Strain), 7 days in culture in the presence of cyclic strain (T7 5% Strain BioRx) and fresh-frozen FDP tendons. Bars represent significant differences, p<0.05. Cyclic strain parameters: f=1 Hz, duration=1 hour per day, time=7 days.
164
Figure 2. mRNA Expression Relative gene expression by cells of seeded scaffolds after 48 hour initial culture (T0 No Strain [48 hrs]), 7 days in culture in the absence of cyclic strain (T7 No Strain), 7 days in culture in the presence of cyclic strain (T7 5% Strain BioRx). (A) Collagen I, (B) Collagen III, (C) MMP-2 (matrix metalloproteinase-2), (D) Tenomodulin. Gene expression was normalized. Bars represent significant differences, p<0.05. Cyclic strain parameters: f=1 Hz, duration=1 hour per day, time=7 days.
165
Table 1. Tensile Properties
Table 1. Tensile Properties
Sample UTS [Mpa] Y [MPA] S [N/mm]
UNSEEDED T0 No Strain[48 hrs] 40.54 ± 6.94 639.29 ± 58.90 18.82 ± 1.73
UNSEEDED T7 No Strain 60.20 ± 5.06 697.04 ± 26.99 27.24 ± 1.86
UNSEEDED T7 5% Strain BioRx 59.43 ± 13.98 672.68 ± 101.00 26.16 ± 3.98
Fresh-Frozen FDP Tendon 76.97 ± 5.99 725.05 ± 24.20 28.66 ± 1.65
SEEDED T7 5% Strain BioRx 56.37 ± 4.34 728.93 ± 39.50 24.83 ± 1.22
SEEDED T7 No Strain 31.46 ± 6.63 437.25 ± 54.59 14.36 ± 2.08
SEEDED T0 No Strain[48 hrs] 33.15 ± 6.97 412.84 ± 52.22 15.63 ± 2.08
Ultimate Tensile Stress (UTS), Young’s modulus (Y), and Stiffness (S) of fresh-frozen FDP tendons, and seeded and un-seeded scaffolds after 48 hours (T0) and 7 days (T7) in culture in the presence (5% Strain BioRx) or absence (No Strain) of cyclic strain. Bars represent significant differences, p<0.05. Cyclic strain parameters: f=1 Hz, duration=1 hour per day, time=7 days.
167
SUMMARY OF DOCTORAL THESIS
Decellularized tissues have been used successfully in several areas of tissue
engineering. Numerous decellularization protocols have been utilized contributing to the
knowledge of techniques that can be used to adequately decellularize tissues.36,62,67,70 The
data presented in this thesis suggest that a novel decellularization and oxidation protocol
that combines physical, chemical, and enzymatic modalities is effective for decellularizing
tendons from various sources including chicken flexor digitorum profundus tendons,
human Achilles tendon, and pig patellar tendons.43,66,69 This protocol is effective in
reducing cellular material and lipids in general and decreasing the expression of antigenic
material such as the α-Gal epitope in xenogenic sources. Both the removal of cellular nad
nuclear material as well as the reduced expression of the α-Gal epitope may reduce the
immunogenicity of scaffolds.9,20,36,59,62 Exposure to enzymatic treatment with trypsin and
oxidation with peracetic acid disrupts cell-matrix interactions and increases total tissue
porosity and pore size without compromising biomechanical properties of the source
tissue.43,66,69 The retention of the extracellular matrix and the modified scaffold structure
facilitate re-population by host cells.66 This process is critically important because the
maintenance of the biomechanical properties allows for the slow in vivo remodeling
process while preserving function.69 The incorporation of peracetic acid and lyophilization
steps in the protocol also have shown to be effective in virus inactivation and tissue
sterilization making this protocol a potential method for the preparation of human allograft
tissue.66
168
In summary, the tissue-engineered scaffolds produced using the novel
decellularization and oxidation protocol demonstrate:
(1) Decreased DNA content and amount of cellular material leading to reduced
immunogenic potential
(2) Non-cytotoxic and biocompatible in vitro and in vivo which make it an ideal
candidate for clinical translation
(3) Alterations in the micro-architecture including increased porosity and pore size
promoting cell infiltration and re-population
(4) Preservation of tensile properties which offers rapid functionality and suitability
for clinical translation
(5) Preservation of extracellular matrix serves as a structural and logistic template
for cell attachment which also facilitates site-specific differentiation and
remodeling
(6) Can be successfully seeded with progenitor cells and subsequently may permit
formation of functional tissues
(7) Mechanical loading of seeded scaffolds improves and maintains the tensile
properties which ultimately enhances the rate of tissue development
(8) Virus inactivation and tissue sterilization reducing the risk of disease
transmission
(9) Reduction of xenoantigens such as the α-gal epitope decreasing the risk for
xenogenic tissue rejection
169
CLINICAL RELEVANCE TO ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY
Tendon and ligament injuries place a significant burden on the United States
economy, accounting for nearly 32 million orthopaedic musculoskeletal injuries
annually.50 These ligamentous and tendinous injuries include tears to the rotator cuff and
anterior cruciate ligament; tendon injuries of the hand and foot; and damage to the
medial/lateral collateral ligament of the elbow. The goals of orthopaedic surgery are to
restore normal joint motion, reduce pain, return patients to full function, and prevent further
degenerative disease. Despite many recent surgical advances, surgeons continue to seek
alternative reconstruction techniques and graft choices in an attempt to meet the patient’s
functional demands, reduce complications, and improve clinical outcomes.
The popularity and use of musculoskeletal allograft tissue in a wide variety of
orthopaedic procedures has dramatically increased over the last 20 years. In a statement
from 2011, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) believes that for
appropriate patients, musculoskeletal allografts represent a therapeutic alternative.61
Potential advantages of allografts include decreased donor site morbidity, immediate
availability of various graft sizes (off-the-shelf), less postoperative pain, better
postoperative function, and lower incidence of postoperative arthrofibrosis.
The greatest disadvantage of allografts is the potential risk of disease transmission.
Contamination of allografts can occur while the tissue remains confined to the donor’s
corpus and during or after tissue removal because of improper tissue processing
procedures.46,68
In the past, the two methods employed to avoid disease transmission were graft
sterilization using ethylene oxide treatment or gamma irradiation. Ethylene oxide is no
170
longer used because of associated post-operative synovitis and intra-articular graft
destruction. Gamma irradiation is thought to create free radicals and modify nucleic acids
leading to virus and bacterial destruction. However, it has been also associated with
disruption of the structural integrity of the graft.24 Initial concerns of graft weakness
associated with using ethylene oxide or high dose gamma irradiation sterilization have been
addressed by employing a multimodal process that involves sterile harvesting of tissue
from the donor, rigorous donor screening/testing, antibiotic soaking, low dose irradiation
(1.2-1.8 Mrad), and use of a final preservation technique such as lyophilization or
freezing.32,34 Despite these advances in graft sterilization, one of the major drawbacks of
using allografts is slow incorporation into host bone and graft remodeling, which may lead
to reduced graft strength resulting in early failure.11
Naturally derived extracellular-matrix scaffolds have evolved as a viable option for
tendon and ligament repair21. However, some materials, such as small intestinal
submucosa, lack the initial strength to adequately replace tissue structures; instead they
have been utilized successfully to augment soft tissue repairs.16,35,44,49 A decellularization
and oxidation protocol is presented that can produce a tissue-engineered scaffold that
possesses mechanical properties similar to the native tissue and can maintain its mechanical
properties until remodeling has occurred and improved functionality. Application of this
procedure may allow patients to have an expedited return to work and recreational activities
after undergoing orthopaedic ligament and tendon reconstruction surgery.
171
FUTURE DIRECTION FOR RESEARCH
Our research efforts are centered on addressing clinical problems, and ultimately,
to improve patient care by translating this basic-science knowledge into clinical practice.
Tendon and ligament injuries pose a significant clinical problem that is inadequately
addressed by current orthopaedic interventions. Tissue-engineered scaffolds offer a
promising alternative to current graft options by delivering a graft with favorable
mechanical properties to the site of injury, providing functional utilization of reconstructed
tendons and ligaments immediately after surgery, as well as graft integration and healing
in the months to years following surgery. The experiments in this thesis demonstrated that
a novel decellularization and oxidation protocol that combines physical, chemical, and
enzymatic modalities can be used to produce naturally derived scaffolds with significant
clinical potential. Research using a small animal study and an ectopic model of
xenotransplantation in hon-human primates has been successful. Although this represents
a critical step in building a foundation for future studies and demonstrating the feasibility
of using a tissue-engineered scaffold for ligament and tendon reconstruction, several
challenges must be addressed prior to translation of this method into the clinic. Among
these future studies, scaffold processing and exploration of tissue sources are among the
most important variables that impact the host response and remodeling outcome. For
clinical translation, many hurdles remain to be overcome such a defining the optimal donor
source and addressing the key concern when using xenograft tissues; immunogenicity and
its impact on graft rejection and long-term graft survival.
172
REFERENCES
1. Weiss, A. B.; Blazina, M. E.; Goldstein, A. R.; and Alexander, H.: Ligament
replacement with an absorbable copolymer carbon fiber scaffold--early clinical experience.
Clin Orthop Relat Res, (196): 77-85, 1985.
2. Bolton, C. W., and Bruchman, W. C.: The GORE-TEX expanded
polytetrafluoroethylene prosthetic ligament. An in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Clin Orthop
Relat Res, (196): 202-13, 1985.
3. Nikolaou, P. K.; Seaber, A. V.; Glisson, R. R.; Ribbeck, B. M.; and Bassett, F. H.,
3rd: Anterior cruciate ligament allograft transplantation. Long-term function, histology,
revascularization, and operative technique. Am J Sports Med, 14(5): 348-60, 1986.
4. Olson, E. J.; Kang, J. D.; Fu, F. H.; Georgescu, H. I.; Mason, G. C.; and Evans, C.
H.: The biochemical and histological effects of artificial ligament wear particles: in vitro
and in vivo studies. Am J Sports Med, 16(6): 558-70, 1988.
5. Lukianov, A. V.; Richmond, J. C.; Barrett, G. R.; and Gillquist, J.: A multicenter
study on the results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a Dacron ligament
prosthesis in "salvage" cases. Am J Sports Med, 17(3): 380-5; discussion 385-6, 1989.
6. Schindhelm, K.; Rogers, G. J.; Milthorpe, B. K.; Hall, P. J.; Howlett, C. R.; Sekel,
R.; Goldberg, J.; and Viglione, W.: Autograft and Leeds-Keio reconstructions of the ovine
anterior cruciate ligament. Clin Orthop Relat Res, (267): 278-93, 1991.
7. Bigliani, L. U.; Cordasco, F. A.; McIlveen, S. J.; and Musso, E. S.: Operative
treatment of failed repairs of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 74(10): 1505-15, 1992.
173
8. McCarthy, D. M.; Tolin, B. S.; and Schwenderman, L.: In Anterior cruciate
ligament: Current and future concepts, pp. 343-356. Edited, 343-356, New York, Raven,
1993.
9. Cooper, D. K.; Good, A. H.; Koren, E.; Oriol, R.; Malcolm, A. J.; Ippolito, R. M.;
Neethling, F. A.; Ye, Y.; Romano, E.; and Zuhdi, N.: Identification of alpha-galactosyl and
other carbohydrate epitopes that are bound by human anti-pig antibodies: relevance to
discordant xenografting in man. Transpl Immunol, 1(3): 198-205, 1993.
10. Margevicius, K. J.; Claes, L. E.; Durselen, L.; and Hanselmann, K.: Identification
and distribution of synthetic ligament wear particles in sheep. J Biomed Mater Res, 31(3):
319-28, 1996.
11. Jackson, D. W.; Corsetti, J.; and Simon, T. M.: Biologic incorporation of allograft
anterior cruciate ligament replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res, (324): 126-33, 1996.
12. Frank, C. B., and Jackson, D. W.: The science of reconstruction of the anterior
cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 79(10): 1556-76, 1997.
13. Laurencin, C. T.; Ambrosio, A. M.; Borden, M. D.; and Cooper, J. A., Jr.: Tissue
engineering: orthopedic applications. Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 1: 19-46, 1999.
14. Gottlob, C. A.; Baker, C. L., Jr.; Pellissier, J. M.; and Colvin, L.: Cost effectiveness
of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young adults. Clin Orthop Relat Res, (367):
272-82, 1999.
15. Lin, V. S.; Lee, M. C.; O'Neal, S.; McKean, J.; and Sung, K. L.: Ligament tissue
engineering using synthetic biodegradable fiber scaffolds. Tissue Eng, 5(5): 443-52, 1999.
16. Butler, D. L., and Awad, H. A.: Perspectives on cell and collagen composites for
tendon repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res, (367 Suppl): S324-32, 1999.
174
17. Buckwalter, J. A., and Grodzinsky, A. J.: Loading of healing bone, fibrous tissue,
and muscle: implications for orthopaedic practice. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 7(5): 291-9,
1999.
18. Butler, D. L.; Goldstein, S. A.; and Guilak, F.: Functional tissue engineering: the
role of biomechanics. J Biomech Eng, 122(6): 570-5, 2000.
19. Galatz, L. M.; Griggs, S.; Cameron, B. D.; and Iannotti, J. P.: Prospective
longitudinal analysis of postoperative shoulder function : a ten-year follow-up study of
full-thickness rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 83-A(7): 1052-6, 2001.
20. Galili, U.: The alpha-Gal epitope (Galalpha1-3Galbeta1-4GlcNAc-R) in
xenotransplantation. Biochimie, 83(7): 557-63, 2001.
21. Badylak, S. F.; Park, K.; Peppas, N.; McCabe, G.; and Yoder, M.: Marrow-derived
cells populate scaffolds composed of xenogeneic extracellular matrix. Exp Hematol,
29(11): 1310-8, 2001.
22. Altman, G. H.; Horan, R. L.; Martin, I.; Farhadi, J.; Stark, P. R.; Volloch, V.;
Richmond, J. C.; Vunjak-Novakovic, G.; and Kaplan, D. L.: Cell differentiation by
mechanical stress. FASEB J, 16(2): 270-2, 2002.
23. Min, B. H.; Han, M. S.; Woo, J. I.; Park, H. J.; and Park, S. R.: The origin of cells
that repopulate patellar tendons used for reconstructing anterior cruciate ligaments in man.
J Bone Joint Surg Br, 85(5): 753-7, 2003.
24. Vangsness, C. T., Jr.; Garcia, I. A.; Mills, C. R.; Kainer, M. A.; Roberts, M. R.; and
Moore, T. M.: Allograft transplantation in the knee: tissue regulation, procurement,
processing, and sterilization. Am J Sports Med, 31(3): 474-81, 2003.
175
25. Chang, S. K.; Egami, D. K.; Shaieb, M. D.; Kan, D. M.; and Richardson, A. B.:
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: allograft versus autograft. Arthroscopy, 19(5):
453-62, 2003.
26. Goutallier, D.; Postel, J. M.; Gleyze, P.; Leguilloux, P.; and Van Driessche, S.:
Influence of cuff muscle fatty degeneration on anatomic and functional outcomes after
simple suture of full-thickness tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 12(6): 550-4, 2003.
27. Garvin, J.; Qi, J.; Maloney, M.; and Banes, A. J.: Novel system for engineering
bioartificial tendons and application of mechanical load. Tissue Eng, 9(5): 967-79, 2003.
28. Vunjak-Novakovic, G.; Altman, G.; Horan, R.; and Kaplan, D. L.: Tissue
engineering of ligaments. Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 6: 131-56, 2004.
29. Galatz, L. M.; Ball, C. M.; Teefey, S. A.; Middleton, W. D.; and Yamaguchi, K.:
The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive
rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 86-A(2): 219-24, 2004.
30. Sherman, O. H., and Banffy, M. B.: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction:
which graft is best? Arthroscopy, 20(9): 974-80, 2004.
31. Laurencin, C. T., and Freeman, J. W.: Ligament tissue engineering: an evolutionary
materials science approach. Biomaterials, 26(36): 7530-6, 2005.
32. Poehling, G. G.; Curl, W. W.; Lee, C. A.; Ginn, T. A.; Rushing, J. T.; Naughton,
M. J.; Holden, M. B.; Martin, D. F.; and Smith, B. P.: Analysis of outcomes of anterior
cruciate ligament repair with 5-year follow-up: allograft versus autograft. Arthroscopy,
21(7): 774-85, 2005.
176
33. Webb, K.; Hitchcock, R. W.; Smeal, R. M.; Li, W.; Gray, S. D.; and Tresco, P. A.:
Cyclic strain increases fibroblast proliferation, matrix accumulation, and elastic modulus
of fibroblast-seeded polyurethane constructs. J Biomech, 39(6): 1136-44, 2006.
34. Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, M. T. F.: MTF Allograft Tissue
Instructions for Use. 2006.
35. Hoffmann, A., and Gross, G.: Tendon and ligament engineering: from cell biology
to in vivo application. Regen Med, 1(4): 563-74, 2006.
36. Gilbert, T. W.; Sellaro, T. L.; and Badylak, S. F.: Decellularization of tissues and
organs. Biomaterials, 27(19): 3675-83, 2006.
37. Laurencin, C. T.; Khan, Y.; Kofron, M.; El-Amin, S.; Botchwey, E.; Yu, X.; and
Cooper, J. A., Jr.: The ABJS Nicolas Andry Award: Tissue engineering of bone and
ligament: a 15-year perspective. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 447: 221-36, 2006.
38. Iannotti, J. P.; Codsi, M. J.; Kwon, Y. W.; Derwin, K.; Ciccone, J.; and Brems, J.
J.: Porcine small intestine submucosa augmentation of surgical repair of chronic two-
tendon rotator cuff tears. A randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 88(6):
1238-44, 2006.
39. Gentleman, E.; Livesay, G. A.; Dee, K. C.; and Nauman, E. A.: Development of
ligament-like structural organization and properties in cell-seeded collagen scaffolds in
vitro. Ann Biomed Eng, 34(5): 726-36, 2006.
40. Gimbel, J. A.; Van Kleunen, J. P.; Lake, S. P.; Williams, G. R.; and Soslowsky, L.
J.: The role of repair tension on tendon to bone healing in an animal model of chronic
rotator cuff tears. J Biomech, 40(3): 561-8, 2007.
177
41. Stone, K. R.; Walgenbach, A. W.; Turek, T. J.; Somers, D. L.; Wicomb, W.; and
Galili, U.: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a porcine xenograft: a serologic,
histologic, and biomechanical study in primates. Arthroscopy, 23(4): 411-9, 2007.
42. Stone, K. R.; Abdel-Motal, U. M.; Walgenbach, A. W.; Turek, T. J.; and Galili, U.:
Replacement of human anterior cruciate ligaments with pig ligaments: a model for anti-
non-gal antibody response in long-term xenotransplantation. Transplantation, 83(2): 211-
9, 2007.
43. Whitlock, P. W.; Smith, T. L.; Poehling, G. G.; Shilt, J. S.; and Van Dyke, M.: A
naturally derived, cytocompatible, and architecturally optimized scaffold for tendon and
ligament regeneration. Biomaterials, 28(29): 4321-9, 2007.
44. Cancedda, R.; Giannoni, P.; and Mastrogiacomo, M.: A tissue engineering
approach to bone repair in large animal models and in clinical practice. Biomaterials,
28(29): 4240-50, 2007.
45. Whitlock, P. W.; Smith, T. L.; Shilt, J. S.; Van Dyke, M. E.; and Poehling, G. G.:
A Novel Scaffold for Tendon and Ligament Regeneration Derived from Human Allograft
Tissue Combined Meeting of the International Orthopaedic Research Societies, Honolulu
HI, 2007.
46. Suarez, L. S., and Richmond, J. C.: Overview of procurement, processing, and
sterilization of soft tissue allografts for sports medicine. Sports Med Arthrosc, 15(3): 106-
13, 2007.
47. Dines, J. S.; Grande, D. A.; and Dines, D. M.: Tissue engineering and rotator cuff
tendon healing. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 16(5 Suppl): S204-7, 2007.
178
48. Cole, B. J.; McCarty, L. P., 3rd; Kang, R. W.; Alford, W.; Lewis, P. B.; and Hayden,
J. K.: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: prospective functional outcome and repair integrity
at minimum 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 16(5): 579-85, 2007.
49. Aurora, A.; McCarron, J.; Iannotti, J. P.; and Derwin, K.: Commercially available
extracellular matrix materials for rotator cuff repairs: state of the art and future trends. J
Shoulder Elbow Surg, 16(5 Suppl): S171-8, 2007.
50. Butler, D. L.; Juncosa-Melvin, N.; Boivin, G. P.; Galloway, M. T.; Shearn, J. T.;
Gooch, C.; and Awad, H.: Functional tissue engineering for tendon repair: A
multidisciplinary strategy using mesenchymal stem cells, bioscaffolds, and mechanical
stimulation. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 26(1): 1-9, 2008.
51. Butler, D. L.; Juncosa-Melvin, N.; Boivin, G. P.; Galloway, M. T.; Shearn, J. T.;
Gooch, C.; and Awad, H.: Functional tissue engineering for tendon repair: A
multidisciplinary strategy using mesenchymal stem cells, bioscaffolds, and mechanical
stimulation. J Orthop Res, 26(1): 1-9, 2008.
52. Joyce, M. J.; Greenwald, A. S.; Boden, S.; Brubaker, S.; and Heim, C. S.:
Musculoskeletal Allograft Tissue Safety American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
Committee on Biological Implants Tissue Work Group, San Francisco CA, 2008.
53. Whitlock, P. W.; Van Dyke, M.; Poehling, G. G.; Smith, T. L.; Marker, D. R.;
Koman, L. A.; and Seyler, T. M.: Functional Tissue Engineering of Tendons and Ligaments
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meeting, Las Vegas NV, 2009.
54. Oh, J. H.; Kim, S. H.; Ji, H. M.; Jo, K. H.; Bin, S. W.; and Gong, H. S.: Prognostic
factors affecting anatomic outcome of rotator cuff repair and correlation with functional
outcome. Arthroscopy, 25(1): 30-9, 2009.
179
55. Ide, J.; Kikukawa, K.; Hirose, J.; Iyama, K.; Sakamoto, H.; and Mizuta, H.:
Reconstruction of large rotator-cuff tears with acellular dermal matrix grafts in rats. J
Shoulder Elbow Surg, 18(2): 288-95, 2009.
56. Neri, B. R.; Chan, K. W.; and Kwon, Y. W.: Management of massive and
irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 18(5): 808-18, 2009.
57. Cousineau-Pelletier, P., and Langelier, E.: Relative contributions of mechanical
degradation, enzymatic degradation, and repair of the extracellular matrix on the response
of tendons when subjected to under- and over- mechanical stimulations in vitro. J Orthop
Res, 28(2): 204-10, 2010.
58. Tischer, T.; Aryee, S.; Wexel, G.; Steinhauser, E.; Adamczyk, C.; Eichhorn, S.;
Milz, S.; Martinek, V.; Gansbacher, B.; Imhoff, A. B.; and Vogt, S.: Tissue engineering of
the anterior cruciate ligament-sodium dodecyl sulfate-acellularized and revitalized tendons
are inferior to native tendons. Tissue Eng Part A, 16(3): 1031-40, 2010.
59. Nagata, S.; Hanayama, R.; and Kawane, K.: Autoimmunity and the clearance of
dead cells. Cell, 140(5): 619-30, 2010.
60. AAOS: Bone and soft-tissue allografts processing and safety. AAOS Now, May
2011, 2011.
61. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Information Statement - Use of
Musculoskeletal Tissue Allografts.
(http://www.aaos.org/about/papers/advistmt/1011.asp), 2011.
62. Crapo, P. M.; Gilbert, T. W.; and Badylak, S. F.: An overview of tissue and whole
organ decellularization processes. Biomaterials, 32(12): 3233-43, 2011.
180
63. Whitlock, P. W.; Seyler, T. M.; Northam, C.; Smith, T. L.; Van Dyke, M. E.;
Poehling, G. G.; and Koman, L. A.: The Effect of Cyclic Strain on the Tensile Properties
of a Naturally-Derived, Decellularized Tendon Scaffold Seeded with Allogeneic Tenocytes
and Associated mRNA Expression. J Surg Orthop Adv, Accepted for publication, 2012.
64. Rathbone, S.; Maffulli, N.; and Cartmell, S. H.: Most british surgeons would
consider using a tissue-engineered anterior cruciate ligament: a questionnaire study. Stem
Cells Int, 2012: 303724, 2012.
65. Schubert, T.; Bigare, E.; Van Isacker, T.; Gigi, J.; Delloye, C.; and Cornu, O.:
Analysis of predisposing factors for contamination of bone and tendon allografts. Cell
Tissue Bank, 13(3): 421-9, 2012.
66. Whitlock, P. W.; Seyler, T. M.; Parks, G. D.; Ornelles, D. A.; Smith, T. L.; Van
Dyke, M. E.; and Poehling, G. G.: A novel process for optimizing musculoskeletal allograft
tissue to improve safety, ultrastructural properties, and cell infiltration. J Bone Joint Surg
Am, 94(16): 1458-67, 2012.
67. Gilbert, T. W.: Strategies for tissue and organ decellularization. J Cell Biochem,
113(7): 2217-22, 2012.
68. Hinsenkamp, M.; Muylle, L.; Eastlund, T.; Fehily, D.; Noel, L.; and Strong, D. M.:
Adverse reactions and events related to musculoskeletal allografts: reviewed by the World
Health Organisation Project NOTIFY. Int Orthop, 36(3): 633-41, 2012.
69. Whitlock, P. W.; Seyler, T. M.; Northam, C. N.; Smith, T. L.; Poehling, G. G.;
Koman, L. A.; and Van Dyke, M. E.: Effect of cyclic strain on tensile properties of a
naturally derived, decellularized tendon scaffold seeded with allogeneic tenocytes and
associated messenger RNA expression. J Surg Orthop Adv, 22(3): 224-32, 2013.
181
70. Arenas-Herrera, J. E.; Ko, I. K.; Atala, A.; and Yoo, J. J.: Decellularization for
whole organ bioengineering. Biomed Mater, 8(1): 014106, 2013.
182
CURRICULUM VITAE
Thorsten M. Seyler, M.D.
EDUCATION
Wake Forest University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC Ph.D., Molecular Medicine and Translational Science Graduate Program: 2007 – 2012
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA Visiting Student, International Exchange Scholarship Program, Ruprecht-Karls-University, School of Medicine, 2004
Mayo Medical and Graduate School of Medicine, Rochester MN Visiting Student, International Exchange Scholarship Program, Ruprecht-Karls-University, School of Medicine, 2002-2003
Ruprecht-Karls-University, School of Medicine, Heidelberg, Germany M.D., 2000 – 2005 Semmelweis University for Medical Science, Budapest, Hungary
Premedical Sciences, 1998 – 2000
183
POST GRADUATE EDUCATION & TRAINING
Wake Forest University, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Winston-Salem, NC Resident, Orthopaedic Surgery: July 2007 – present Program Director: Jason E. Lang, M.D. Wake Forest University, Department of General Surgery, Winston-Salem, NC
Resident (Intern), General Surgery: July 2009 – June 2010 Program Director: Jason E. Lang, M.D. Wake Forest University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Winston-Salem,
NC Graduate Student (Ph.D.), Molecular Medicine and Translational Science Graduate Program: August 2007 – December 2012 Program Directors: Richard F. Loeser, Jr., M.D. & Kathleen B. Brosnihan, Ph.D.
Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Baltimore, MD Research Fellow, Center for Joint Preservation and Reconstruction: July 2005 – June 2007 Program Director: Michael A. Mont, M.D.
184
MEDICAL LICENSURES
Resident training license, State of North Carolina, 2007 (active) Full license, Federal Republic of Germany, 2005 (active)
185
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS
Orthopaedic Research Society: Associate Member 007 - present Southern Orthopaedic Association: Resident Member
2007 - present American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Resident Member
2007 - present American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons: Resident Member
2012 - present
186
HONORS & AWARDS
2003 Nominated for the ACR/ARHP Student Achievement Award at the 67th American College of Rheumatology Annual Scientific Meeting, Orlando, FL (Lead-author)
2006 Award for Best Resident/Fellow Clinical Research Paper, 65th Annual Meeting Maryland Orthopaedic Association, Baltimore, MD (Co-author)
2008 Award for Best Basic Science Research Paper, Resident Research Day, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC (Lead-author)
2009 Award of Excellence for Scientific Exhibits, 76th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV (Co-author)
2012 Runner-up Best Clinical Science Resident Research Paper, 32nd Annual Oscar Miller Day Symposium, Charlotte, NC (Lead-author)
2012 Best Clinical Science Resident Research Paper, 32nd Annual Oscar Miller Day Symposium, Charlotte, NC (Co-author)
2012 Best Research Paper, 100th Annual Meeting of The Clinical Orthopaedic Society (COS), The Palmer House, Chicago, IL (Co-author)
2012 Best Research Paper, Annual Meeting North Carolina Orthopaedic Association, Pinehurst Resort, Village of Pinehurst, NC (Co-author)
187
EDITORIAL ACTIVITIES
Editorial Advisory Board Member, Open Bone Journal 2009 - present
Associate Editor, Bone & Joint Research 2012 - present
Consultant Reviewer, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2008 - present
Consultant Reviewer, Journal of Joint and Bone Surgery Am. Vol. 2006 - present
Consultant Reviewer, Journal of Arthroplasty 2006 - present
Consultant Reviewer, Musculoskeletal Disorders 2006 – present
Consultant Reviewer, Orthopaedic Knowledge Online Journal 2009 - present
Guest Editor, Proceedings of the 1st Annual United States Comprehensive Course on Total Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Am. Vol., Volume 90-A, Supplement 3, Pages 1-148, 2008
Guest Editor, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual United States Comprehensive Course on Total Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty, Bulletin of the NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, Volume 62 (2), Pages 101-192, 2009
Guest Editor, Symposium on Advanced Techniques for Rehabilitation after Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Volume 476 (6), Pages 1395-1500, 2009
188
COMMITTEES
Program Director, First Annual U.S. Comprehensive Course on Total Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty, November 8-10, 2007, Annapolis, MD
Program Director, Second Annual U.S. Comprehensive Course on Total Hip Arthroplasty, October 24-25, 2008, Los Angeles, CA
Program Director, Third Annual U.S. Comprehensive Course on Total Hip Arthroplasty, September 4-5, 2009, Baltimore, MD
Program Director, Fourth Annual Hip Joint Course, Treatment for Young Patients with Hip Arthritis, August 27-29, 2010, Baltimore, MD
Program Director, Sixth Annual Joint Course, New Technology for the Treatment of Adult Hip and Knee Disorders, August 24-25, 2012, Baltimore, MD
Voting Delegate, International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infection, August 1st, 2013, Philadelpia, PA
189
PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS
1. Marulanda, G. A.; Ragland, P. S.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Reductions in blood loss with use of a bipolar sealer for hemostasis in primary total knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int, 14: 281-6, 2005.
2. Seyler, T. M.; Bonutti, P. M.; Ragland, P. S.; Marulanda, G. A.; and Mont, M. A.: Minimally invasive lateral approach to total knee arthroplasty. Seminars in Arthroplasty, 16(3): 223-226, 2005.
3. Weyand, C. M.; Seyler, T. M.; and Goronzy, J. J.: B cells in rheumatoid synovitis. Arthritis Res Ther, 7 Suppl 3: S9-12, 2005.
4. Park, Y. W.; Pryshchep, S.; Seyler, T. M.; Goronzy, J. J.; and Weyand, C. M.: B cells as a therapeutic target in autoimmune diseases. Expert Opin Ther Targets, 9(3): 431-45, 2005.
5. Seyler, T. M.; Park, Y. W.; Takemura, S.; Bram, R. J.; Kurtin, P. J.; Goronzy, J. J.; and Weyand, C. M.: BLyS and APRIL in rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Invest, 115(11): 3083-92, 2005.
6. Mont, M. A.; Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Plate, J. F.; Delanois, R. E.; and Kester, M.: The Future of High Performance Total Knee Arthroplasty. Seminars in Arthroplasty, 17(2): 80-87, 2006.
7. Mont, M. A.; Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Plate, J. F.; Delanois, R. E.; and Kester, M.: The Future of High Performance Total Hip Arthroplasty. Seminars in Arthroplasty, 17(2): 88-92, 2006.
8. Seyler, T. M.; Etienne, G.; Plate, J. F.; Fisher, P.; and Mont, M. A.: Use of modular large femoral heads without liners in hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int, 15: 217-20, 2006.
9. Seyler, T. M.; Marulanda, G. A.; Delanois, R. E.; and Mont, M. A.: Limited Approach Surface Replacement Total Hip Arthroplasty. Oper Tech Orthop, 16(2): 120-125, 2006.
10. Seyler, T. M.; Mont, M. A.; Ragland, P. S.; Kachwala, M. M.; and Delanois, R. E.: Sports activity after total hip and knee arthroplasty: specific recommendations concerning tennis. Sports Med, 36(7): 571-83, 2006.
11. Mont, M. A.; Ragland, P. S.; Etienne, G.; Seyler, T. M.; and Schmalzried, T. P.: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 14(8): 454-63, 2006.
12. Leadbetter, W. B.; Seyler, T. M.; Ragland, P. S.; and Mont, M. A.: Indications, contraindications, and pitfalls of patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 88 Suppl 4: 122-37, 2006.
13. Diaz-Borjon, A.; Seyler, T. M.; Chen, N. L.; and Lim, S. S.: Bisphosphonate-associated arthritis. J Clin Rheumatol, 12(3): 131-3, 2006.
14. Marulanda, G.; Seyler, T. M.; Sheikh, N. H.; and Mont, M. A.: Percutaneous drilling for the treatment of secondary osteonecrosis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 88(6): 740-6, 2006.
15. Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Kester, M.; McMahon, M.; and Mont, M. A.: Minimally invasive revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 446: 69-75, 2006.
190
16. Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Marulanda, G. A.; Delanois, R. E.; and Bhave, A.: Surgical treatment and customized rehabilitation for stiff knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 446: 193-200, 2006.
17. Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Delanois, R. E.; McMahon, M.; McCarthy, J. C.; and Mont, M. A.: Osteonecrosis of the knee after laser or radiofrequency-assisted arthroscopy: treatment with minimally invasive knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 88 Suppl 3: 69-75, 2006.
18. Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Marulanda, G. A.; and Delanois, R. E.: Use of metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 88 Suppl 3: 90-7, 2006.
19. Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Plate, J. F.; Delanois, R. E.; and Parvizi, J.: Uncemented total hip arthroplasty in young adults with osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a comparative study. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 88 Suppl 3: 104-9, 2006.
20. Seyler, T. M.; Bonutti, P. M.; Shen, J.; Naughton, M.; and Kester, M.: Use of an alumina-on-alumina bearing system in total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 88 Suppl 3: 116-25, 2006.
21. Mont, M. A.; Marulanda, G. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Plate, J. F.; and Delanois, R. E.: Core decompression and nonvascularized bone grafting for the treatment of early stage osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Instr Course Lect, 56: 213-20, 2007.
22. Akbar, M.; Seyler, T. M.; Abel, R.; and Gerner, H. J.: [Heterotope Ossifikation bei Querschnittlähmung und Schädel-Hirn-Trauma]. Phys Rehab Kur Med, 17(3): 156-171, 2007.
23. Seyler, T. M.; Cui, Q.; Mihalko, W. M.; Mont, M. A.; and Saleh, K. J.: Advances in hip arthroplasty in the treatment of osteonecrosis. Instr Course Lect, 56: 221-33, 2007.
24. Mont, M. A.; Jones, L. C.; Seyler, T. M.; Marulanda, G. A.; Saleh, K. J.; and Delanois, R. E.: New treatment approaches for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: an overview. Instr Course Lect, 56: 197-212, 2007.
25. Childress III, L.; Ulrich, S. D.; Seyler, T. M.; Delanois, R. E.; Marker, D. R.; and Mont, M. A.: Role of Metal-on-Metal Resurfacing in the Treatment of Late Stage Osteonecrosis. Seminars in Arthroplasty, 18(3): 216-219, 2007.
26. Diaz Jr, L. A.; Foss, C. A.; Thornton, K.; Nimmagadda, S.; Endres, C. J.; Uzuner, O.; Seyler, T. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Conway, J.; Bettegowda, C.; Agrawal, N.; Cheong, I.; Zhang, X.; Ladenson, P. W.; Vogelstein, B. N.; Mont, M. A.; Zhou, S.; Kinzler, K. W.; Vogelstein, B.; and Pomper, M. G.: Imaging of musculoskeletal bacterial infections by [124I]FIAU-PET/CT. PLoS ONE, 2(10), 2007.
27. Delanois, R. E.; Seyler, T. M.; Essner, A.; Schmidig, G.; and Mont, M. A.: Cementation of a polyethylene liner into a metal shell. J Arthroplasty, 22(5): 732-7, 2007.
28. Boyd, H. S.; Ulrich, S. D.; Seyler, T. M.; Marulanda, G. A.; and Mont, M. A.: Resurfacing for Perthes disease: an alternative to standard hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 465: 80-5, 2007.
29. Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Beaule, P. E.; Boyd, H. S.; Grecula, M. J.; Goldberg, V. M.; Kennedy, W. R.; Marker, D. R.; Schmalzried, T. P.; Sparling, E. A.; Vail, T. P.; and Amstutz, H. C.: Effect of changing indications and techniques on total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 465: 63-70, 2007.
191
30. Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Ragland, P. S.; Starr, R.; Erhart, J.; and Bhave, A.: Gait analysis of patients with resurfacing hip arthroplasty compared with hip osteoarthritis and standard total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 22(1): 100-8, 2007.
31. Mont, M. A.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Gordon, N.; Hungerford, D. S.; and Jones, L. C.: Knee arthroplasties have similar results in high- and low-activity patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 460: 165-73, 2007.
32. Ulrich, S. D.; Mont, M. A.; Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; and Jones, L. C.: Scientific evidence supporting computer-assisted surgery and minimally invasive surgery for total knee arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices, 4(4): 497-505, 2007.
33. Mont, M. A.; Ulrich, S. D.; and Seyler, T. M.: Role of thrombotic and fibrinolytic alterations in the pathogenesis and treatment of osteonecrosis. J Rheumatol, 34(3): 466-8, 2007.
34. Ulrich, S. D.; Bhave, A.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Focused rehabilitation treatment of poorly functioning total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 464: 138-45, 2007.
35. Ulrich, S. D.; Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Jones, L. C.; and Mont, M. A.: Outcomes-based evaluations supporting computer-assisted surgery and minimally invasive surgery for total hip arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices, 4(6): 873-83, 2007.
36. Seyler, T. M.; Bonutti, P. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Fatscher, T.; Marker, D. R.; and Mont, M. A.: Minimally invasive lateral approach to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 22(7 Suppl 3): 21-6, 2007.
37. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Jinnah, R. H.; Delanois, R. E.; Ulrich, S. D.; and Mont, M. A.: Femoral neck fractures after metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty, 22(7 Suppl 3): 66-71, 2007.
38. Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Bhave, A.; Plate, J. F.; Marulanda, G. A.; Bonutti, P. M.; Delanois, R. E.; and Mont, M. A.: Functional problems and arthrofibrosis following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 89 Suppl 3: 59-69, 2007.
39. Akbar, M.; Abel, R.; Seyler, T. M.; Bedke, J.; Haferkamp, A.; Gerner, H. J.; and Mohring, K.: Repeated botulinum-A toxin injections in the treatment of myelodysplastic children and patients with spinal cord injuries with neurogenic bladder dysfunction. BJU Int, 100(3): 639-45, 2007.
40. Bhave, A.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Plate, J. F.; and Mont, M. A.: Functional problems and treatment solutions after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 22(6 Suppl 2): 116-24, 2007.
41. Kolisek, F. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Marker, D. R.; Jessup, N. M.; and Mont, M. A.: A Comparison of the Minimally Invasive Dual-Incision versus Posterolateral Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int, 17: 253-8, 2008.
42. Mont, M. A.; Ulrich, S. D.; Seyler, T. M.; Smith, J. M.; Marker, D. R.; McGrath, M. S.; Hungerford, D. S.; and Jones, L. C.: Bone scanning of limited value for diagnosis of symptomatic oligofocal and multifocal osteonecrosis. J Rheumatol, 35(8): 1629-34, 2008.
43. Seyler, T. M.; Lai, L. P.; Sprinkle, D. I.; Ward, W. G.; and Jinnah, R. H.: Does computer-assisted surgery improve accuracy and decrease the learning curve in hip resurfacing? A radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 90 Suppl 3: 71-80, 2008.
192
44. Bonutti, P. M.; McGrath, M. S.; Ulrich, S. D.; McKenzie, S. A.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Static progressive stretch for the treatment of knee stiffness. Knee, 15(4): 272-6, 2008.
45. Mont, M. A.; McGrath, M. S.; Ulrich, S. D.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; and Delanois, R. E.: Metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing arthroplasty in the presence of extra-articular deformities or implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 90 Suppl 3: 45-51, 2008.
46. McGrath, M. S.; Desser, D. R.; Ulrich, S. D.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; and Mont, M. A.: Total hip resurfacing in patients who are sixty years of age or older. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 90 Suppl 3: 27-31, 2008.
47. Robinson, Y.; Heyde, C. E.; Tschoke, S. K.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; and Ulrich, S. D.: Evidence supporting the use of bone morphogenetic proteins for spinal fusion surgery. Expert Rev Med Devices, 5(1): 75-84, 2008.
48. Delanois, R. E.; McGrath, M. S.; Ulrich, S. D.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Bonutti, P. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Results of total knee replacement for isolated patellofemoral arthritis: when not to perform a patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am, 39(3): 381-8, vii, 2008.
49. Akbar, M.; Mont, M. A.; Heisel, C.; Marker, D. R.; Ulrich, S. D.; and Seyler, T. M.: [Resurfacing for osteonecrosis of the femoral head]. Orthopade, 37(7): 672-8, 2008.
50. Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Bianco, P. D.; Ulrich, S. D.; and Mont, M. A.: Inventing in orthopaedics: from idea to marketed device. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 90(6): 1385-92, 2008.
51. Marulanda, G. A.; Ulrich, S. D.; Seyler, T. M.; Delanois, R. E.; and Mont, M. A.: Reductions in blood loss with a bipolar sealer in total hip arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices, 5(2): 125-31, 2008.
52. Stiehl, J. B.; Ulrich, S. D.; Seyler, T. M.; Bonutti, P. M.; Marker, D. R.; and Mont, M. A.: Bone morphogenetic proteins in total hip arthroplasty, osteonecrosis and trauma surgery. Expert Rev Med Devices, 5(2): 231-8, 2008.
53. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Srivastava, S.; and Mont, M. A.: Do modern techniques improve core decompression outcomes for hip osteonecrosis? Clin Orthop Relat Res, 466(5): 1093-103, 2008.
54. Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Ulrich, S. D.; Fatscher, T.; and Mont, M. A.: Nonvascularized bone grafting defers joint arthroplasty in hip osteonecrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 466(5): 1125-32, 2008.
55. Bonutti, P. M.; Dethmers, D.; Ulrich, S. D.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Computer navigation-assisted versus minimally invasive TKA: benefits and drawbacks. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 466(11): 2756-62, 2008.
56. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; McGrath, M. S.; Delanois, R. E.; Ulrich, S. D.; and Mont, M. A.: Treatment of early stage osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 90 Suppl 4: 175-87, 2008.
57. McGrath, M. S.; Ulrich, S. D.; Bonutti, P. M.; Smith, J. M.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Evaluation of static progressive stretch for the treatment of wrist stiffness. J Hand Surg [Am], 33(9): 1498-504, 2008.
58. Seyler, T. M.; Smith, B. P.; Marker, D. R.; Ma, J.; Shen, J.; Smith, T. L.; Mont, M. A.; Kolaski, K.; and Koman, L. A.: Botulinum neurotoxin as a therapeutic modality
193
in orthopaedic surgery: more than twenty years of experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 90 Suppl 4: 133-45, 2008.
59. Sikes, C. V.; Lai, L. P.; Schreiber, M.; Mont, M. A.; Jinnah, R. H.; and Seyler, T. M.: Instability after total hip arthroplasty: treatment with large femoral heads vs constrained liners. J Arthroplasty, 23(7 Suppl): 59-63, 2008.
60. Ulrich, S. D.; Seyler, T. M.; Bennett, D.; Delanois, R. E.; Saleh, K. J.; Thongtrangan, I.; Kuskowski, M.; Cheng, E. Y.; Sharkey, P. F.; Parvizi, J.; Stiehl, J. B.; and Mont, M. A.: Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision? Int Orthop, 32(5): 597-604, 2008.
61. Mont, M. A.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Jones, L. C.; Kolisek, F. R.; and Hungerford, D. S.: High-impact sports after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 23(6 Suppl 1): 80-4, 2008.
62. Seyler, T. M.; Jinnah, R. H.; Koman, L. A.; Marker, D. R.; Mont, M. A.; Ulrich, S. D.; and Bhave, A.: Botulinum toxin type A injections for the management of flexion contractures following total knee arthroplasty. J Surg Orthop Adv, 17(4): 231-8, 2008.
63. Mont, M. A.; Schmalzried, T. P.; Zywiel, M. G.; McGrath, M. S.; and Seyler, T. M.: Perceptions concerning hip resurfacing from attendees at the Second Annual U.S. Comprehensive Course on Total Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis, 67(2): 102-7, 2009.
64. Bhave, A.; Zywiel, M. G.; Ulrich, S. D.; McGrath, M. S.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Delanois, R. E.; and Mont, M. A.: Botulinum toxin type A injections for the management of muscle tightness following total hip arthroplasty: a case series. J Orthop Surg Res, 4: 34, 2009.
65. Marker, D. R.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; McGrath, M. S.; Kolisek, F. R.; and Bonutti, P. M.: Does functional improvement following TKA correlate to increased sports activity? Iowa Orthop J, 29: 11-6, 2009.
66. Shields, J. S.; Seyler, T. M.; Maguire, C.; and Jinnah, R. H.: Computer-assisted navigation in hip resurfacing arthroplasty - a single-surgeon experience. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis, 67(2): 164-7, 2009.
67. Kolisek, F. R.; McGrath, M. S.; Marker, D. R.; Jessup, N.; Seyler, T. M.; Mont, M. A.; and Lowry Barnes, C.: Posterior-stabilized versus posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Iowa Orthop J, 29: 23-7, 2009.
68. Seyler, T. M.; Mont, M. A.; Lai, L. P.; Xie, J.; Marker, D. R.; Zywiel, M. G.; and Bonutti, P. M.: Mid-term results and factors affecting outcome of a metal-backed unicompartmental knee design: a case series. J Orthop Surg Res, 4: 39, 2009.
69. Maguire, C. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Boyd, H. S.; Lai, L. P.; Delanois, R. E.; and Jinnah, R. H.: Hip resurfacing-keys to success. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis, 67(2): 142-5, 2009.
70. Strassmair, M.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Bosebeck, H.; Marker, D. R.; and Laporte, D. M.: The use of a type-I lyophilisate collagen as an osteoinductive factor in pseudarthroses of the forearm. Surg Technol Int, 18: 213-8, 2009.
71. Zywiel, M. G.; McGrath, M. S.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Bonutti, P. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Osteonecrosis of the knee: a review of three disorders. Orthop Clin North Am, 40(2): 193-211, 2009.
194
72. Marker, D. R.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Laporte, D. M.; and Frassica, F. J.: Current literature: an educational tool to study osteonecrosis for the orthopaedic in-training examination? Orthop Clin North Am, 40(2): 299-304, 2009.
73. Bonutti, P. M.; Zywiel, M. G.; Seyler, T. M.; Lee, S. Y.; McGrath, M. S.; Marker, D. R.; and Mont, M. A.: Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty using the contralateral knee as a control group: a case-control study. Int Orthop, 2009.
74. Marulanda, G. A.; Krebs, V. E.; Bierbaum, B. E.; Goldberg, V. M.; Ries, M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Hemostasis using a bipolar sealer in primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ), 38(12): E179-83, 2009.
75. Marulanda, G. A.; Minniti, C. P.; Ulrich, S. D.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Perioperative management for orthopaedic patients with sickle cell anaemia. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong), 17(3): 346-50, 2009.
76. Kolisek, F. R.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Jessup, N. M.; Siddiqui, J. A.; Monesmith, E.; and Ulrich, S. D.: Total knee arthroplasty using cementless keels and cemented tibial trays: 10-year results. Int Orthop, 33(1): 117-21, 2009.
77. Saenz, C. L.; McGrath, M. S.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Mont, M. A.; and Bonutti, P. M.: Early failure of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty design with an all-polyethylene tibial component. Knee, 17(1): 53-6, 2009.
78. McGrath, M. S.; Suda, A. J.; Bonutti, P. M.; Zywiel, M. G.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Techniques for managing anatomic variations in primary total knee arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices, 6(1): 75-93, 2009.
79. McGrath, M. S.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; and Mont, M. A.: Surface replacement is comparable to primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 467(1): 94-100, 2009.
80. Harreld, K. L.; Marulanda, G. A.; Ulrich, S. D.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Small-diameter percutaneous decompression for osteonecrosis of the shoulder. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ), 38(7): 348-54, 2009.
81. Mont, M. A., and Seyler, T. M.: Advanced techniques for rehabilitation after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 467(6): 1395, 2009.
82. Mont, M. A.; McGrath, M. S.; Bonutti, P. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; and Suda, A. J.: Anatomic and physiologic rationale for various technologies for primary total hip arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices, 6(2): 169-86, 2009.
83. Ulrich, S. D.; Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Morrey, B. F.; and Mont, M. A.: Restoring range of motion via stress relaxation and static progressive stretch in posttraumatic elbow contractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 19(2): 196-201, 2009.
84. Akbar, M.; Bresch, B.; Seyler, T. M.; Wenz, W.; Bruckner, T.; Abel, R.; and Carstens, C.: Management of orthopaedic sequelae of congenital spinal disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 91 Suppl 6: 87-100, 2009.
85. Marker, D. R.; LaPorte, D. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; McGrath, M. S.; Frassica, F. J.; and Mont, M. A.: Orthopaedic journal publications and their role in the preparation for the orthopaedic in-training examination. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 91 Suppl 6: 59-66, 2009.
86. Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Boyd, H. S.; Zywiel, M. G.; McGrath, M. S.; and Mont, M. A.: Preoperative evaluation to determine candidates for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 91 Suppl 6: 32-41, 2009.
195
87. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Bhave, A.; Zywiel, M. G.; and Mont, M. A.: Does commitment to rehabilitation influence clinical outcome of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty? J Orthop Surg Res, 5: 20, 2010.
88. Marker, D. R.; Zywiel, M. G.; Johnson, A. J.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure? BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 11: 227, 2010.
89. Akbar, M.; Almatrod, S.; Furstenberg, C. H.; Hemmer, S.; Kretzer, J. P.; Abel, R.; Seyler, T. M.; Bruckner, T.; Carstens, C.; and Wiedenhofer, B.: [Kyphectomy in myelomeningocele patients. Longterm results, complications and risk analysis]. Orthopade, 39(8): 792-800, 2010.
90. Clohisy, J. C.; Oryhon, J. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Wells, C. W.; Liu, S. S.; Callaghan, J. J.; and Mont, M. A.: Function and fixation of total hip arthroplasty in patients 25 years of age or younger. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 468(12): 3207-13, 2010.
91. Akbar, M.; Balean, G.; Brunner, M.; Seyler, T. M.; Bruckner, T.; Munzinger, J.; Grieser, T.; Gerner, H. J.; and Loew, M.: Prevalence of rotator cuff tear in paraplegic patients compared with controls. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 92(1): 23-30, 2010.
92. Marulanda, G. A.; McGrath, M. S.; Ulrich, S. D.; Seyler, T. M.; Delanois, R. E.; and Mont, M. A.: Percutaneous drilling for the treatment of atraumatic osteonecrosis of the ankle. J Foot Ankle Surg, 49(1): 20-4, 2010.
93. Bonutti, P. M.; Zywiel, M. G.; Ulrich, S. D.; Stroh, D. A.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: A comparison of subvastus and midvastus approaches in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 92(3): 575-82, 2010.
94. LaPorte, D. M.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Mont, M. A.; and Frassica, F. J.: Educational resources for the Orthopedic In-Training Examination. J Surg Educ, 67(3): 135-8, 2010.
95. Akbar, M.; Bresch, B.; Raiss, P.; Furstenberg, C. H.; Bruckner, T.; Seyler, T. M.; Carstens, C.; and Abel, R.: Fractures in myelomeningocele. J Orthop Traumatol, 11(3): 175-82, 2010.
96. Maguire, C. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Jinnah, R. H.; and Ward, W. G.: Hip resurfacing with retention of existing hardware - case report. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis, 69 Suppl 1: S98-102, 2011.
97. Seyler, T. M.; Johnson, A. J.; Marker, D. R.; Mont, M. A.; and Bonutti, P. M.: Arthroscopic-assisted minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. Arthroscopy, 27(2): 290-3, 2011.
98. Lang, J. E.; Mannava, S.; Floyd, A. J.; Goddard, M. S.; Smith, B. P.; Mofidi, A.; Seyler, T. M.; and Jinnah, R. H.: Robotic systems in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 93(10): 1296-9, 2011.
99. Mannava, S.; Plate, J. F.; Whitlock, P. W.; Callahan, M. F.; Seyler, T. M.; Koman, L. A.; Smith, T. L.; and Tuohy, C. J.: Evaluation of in vivo rotator cuff muscle function after acute and chronic detachment of the supraspinatus tendon: an experimental study in an animal model. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 93(18): 1702-11, 2011.
100. Bracey, D. N.; Seyler, T. M.; Shields, J. S.; Leng, X.; Jinnah, R. H.; and Lang, J. E.: A Comparison of Acetate and Digital Templating for Hip Resurfacing. Am J Orth, Under Review, 2012.
196
101. Plate, J. F.; Seyler, T. M.; Halvorson, J. J.; Santago, A. C.; and Lang, J. E.: Non-Anatomic Closure of a Standard Parapatellar Knee Arthrotomy Leads to Patella Mal-Tracking and Decreased Range of Motion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2013 Jan 19. [Epub ahead of print]
102. Plate, J. F.; Seyler, T. M.; Stroh, A.; Akbar, M.; and Mont, M. A.: Risk of dislocation using large- vs. small-diameter femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty BMC Res Notes. Oct 5:553, 2012.
103. Schweppe, M. L.; Seyler, T. M.; Plate, J. F.; Swenson, R. D.; and Lang, J. E.: Does Surgical Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty Affect Rehabilitation, Discharge Disposition, and Readmission Rate? Surg Technol Int, XXIII, 2013.
104. Seyler, T. M.; Whitlock, P. W.; Northam, C. N.; Smith, T. L.; Poehling, G. G.; Koman, L. A.; and Van Dyke, M. E.: The Effect of Cyclic Strain on the Tensile Properties of a Naturally-Derived, Decellularized Tendon Scaffold Seeded with Allogeneic Tenocytes and Associated mRNA Expression. J Surg Orthop Adv, 22,3:224-232, 2013.
105. Whitlock, P. W.; Seyler, T. M.; Parks, G. D.; Ornelles, D. A.; Smith, T. L.; Van Dyke, M. E.; and Poehling, G. G.: A Novel Process for Optimizing Musculoskeletal Allograft Tissue to Improve Safety, Ultrastructural Properties, and Cell Infiltration. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 94,16:1458-1467, 2012.
106. Mannava, S.; Plate, J. F.; Tuohy, C. J.; Seyler, T. M.; Whitlock, P. W.; Curl, W. W.; Smith, T. L.; and Saul, K. R.: The science of rotator cuff tears: translating animal models to clinical recommendations using simulation analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 21,7:1610-1619, 2013.
107. Plate, J. F.; Mofidi, A.; Mannava, S.; Lorentzen, C. M.; Smith, B. P.; Seyler, T. M.; McTighe, T.; and Jinnah, R. H.: Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Past, Present, Future. Reconstructive Review, 2(2): 52-62, 2012.
108. Seyler, T. M.; Lorentzen, C. M.; and Jinnah, R. H. Femoro-acetabular Impingement: Prevalence and Importance in Patients Undergoing Hip Resurfacing. J Surg Orthop Adv, Under review, 2013.
109. Plate, J. F.; Pace, L. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Moreno, R. J.; Smith, T. L.; Tuohy, C. J.; and Mannava, S. Age-related Changes Affect Rat Rotator Cuff Muscle Function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 23,1:91-98, 2014.
110. Brown, P. J.; Sikes, C. V.; Mannava, S; Seyler, T. M.; Lang, J. E.; Stitzel, J. D. Biomechanical Comparison of A Single Large Diameter and Multiple Small Diameter Femoral Head Core Decompression Techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am, Under Review, 2013.
197
BOOK CHAPTERS
1. Frey, M. E.; O'Young, B. J.; Marulanda, G. A.; Mont, M. A.; and Seyler, T. M.: The Knee: Anatomy, Pathology, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Rehabilitation. In Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, pp. 376-391. Edited by O'Young, B. J.; Young, M. A.; and Stiens, S. A., 376-391, Philadelphia, PA, Elsevier Mosby Saunders 2007.
2. Mont, M. A.; Marulanda, G. A.; Delanois, R. E.; Seyler, T. M.; and Friedman, A.: The Hip: Anatomy, Pathology, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Rehabilitation. In Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, pp. 365-375. Edited by O'Young, B. J.; Young, M. A.; and Stiens, S. A., 365-375, Philadelphia, PA, Elsevier Mosby Saunders, 2007.
3. Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; and Mont, M. A.: Osteonecrosis. In Primer on the Rheumatic Diseases, pp. 565-572. Edited by Klippel, J. H.; Stone, J. H.; Crofford, L. J.; and White, P. H., 565-572, New York, NY, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, 2007.
4. Seyler, T. M.; Mont, M. A.; Plate, J. F.; and Bonutti, P. M.: Valgus Approach to Total Knee Arthroplasty. In Navigation and MIS in Orthopaedic Surgery, pp. 240-247. Edited by Stiehl, J. B.; Konermann, W. H.; Haaker, R. G.; and DiGioia III, A. M., 240-247, Heidelberg, Germany, Springer Medizin Verlag, 2007.
5. Ulrich, S. D.; Mont, M. A.; Marker, D. R.; and Seyler, T. M.: Minimally Invasive Approach to Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty. In Minimally Invasive Surgery in Orthopedics, pp. 195-204. Edited by Scuderi, G. R., and Tria, A. J., 195-204, New York, NY, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, 2010.
6. Lai, L. P.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Osteonecrosis of the Hip. In Total Hip Arthroplasty: The Essentials. Edited by Parvizi, J., and Klatt, B. A., Thorofare, NJ, SLACK Incorporated, 2012.
7. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Mont, M. A.; and McCarthy, E. F.: Osteonecrosis and Transient Osteoporosis: Diagnosis, Etiology, Treatment Options. In Surgery of the Hip. Edited by Berry, D. M., and Lieberman, J. R., Philadelphia, PA, Elsevier Mosby Saunders, 2012.
8. Whitlock, P. W.; Seyler, T. M.; Mannava, S.; and Poehling, G. G.: A Tissue-Engineered Approach to Tendon and Ligament Reconstruction. In Sports Injuries. Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment and Rehabilitation. Edited by Doral, M. M.; Tandoğan, R. N.; Mann, G.; and Verdonk, R., Heidelberg, Germany, Springer Medizin Verlag, 2012
198
MEETING PRESENTATIONS
1. Seyler, T. M.; Takemura, S.; Kang, Y. M.; Bram, R. J.; Kurtin, P. J.; Trousdale, R. T.; Goronzy, J. J.; and Weyand, C. M.: Biological Functions of BLyS and APRIL in Rheumatoid Synovitis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 2003, Volume 48, Number 9, 67th Annual Scientific Meeting American College of Rheumatology Orlando, FL, 2003.
2. Seyler, T. M.; Park, Y. W.; Takemura, S.; Kang, Y. M.; Bram, R. J.; Goronzy, J. J.; and Weyand, C. M.: BLyS and APRIL in Rheumatoid Synovitis. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 2004, Volume 27, Number 4, 12th International Congress of Immunology and 4th Annual Conference of FOCIS, Montreal, Canada, 2004.
3. Ragland, P. S.; Mont, M. A.; Marulanda, G. A.; Delanois, R. E.; and Seyler, T. M.: Use of Metal-on-metal Resurfacing Arthroplasty For Avascular Necrosis of the Hip. Podium Presentation, 13th Annual Meeting of Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO), Imperial College, London, United Kingdom, 2005.
4. Mont, M. A.; Ragland, P. S.; Marulanda, G. A.; Delanois, R. E.; Flowers, N. B.; and Seyler, T. M.: Core Decompression For Secondary Osteonecrosis Of the Knee Using a Small-Diameter Drilling Technique. Podium Presentation, 13th Annual Meeting of Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO), Imperial College, London, United Kingdom, 2005.
5. Ragland, P. S.; Mont, M. A.; Marulanda, G. A.; Delanois, R. E.; Flowers, N. B.; and Seyler, T. M.: Use of a Proximally Hydroxyapatite-Coated Tapered Cementless Stem for Avascular Necrosis of the Hip. Podium Presentation, 13th Annual Meeting of Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO), Imperial College, London, United Kingdom, 2005.
6. Marulanda, G. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Delanois, R. E.; and Mont, M. A.: Percutaneous Drilling for the Treatment of Secondary Osteonecrosis of the Knee. Podium Presentation, 65th Annual Meeting Maryland Orthopaedic Society, Curtis National Hand Center, The Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD, 2006.
7. Marker, D. R.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Hungerford, D. S.; and Jones, L. C.: Total Knee Arthroplasty in High Activity Patients. Best Resident/Fellow Research Award Maryland Orthopaedic Association, 65th Annual Meeting Maryland Orthopaedic Society, Curtis National Hand Center, The Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD, 2006.
8. Bhave, A.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; and Delanois, R. E.: Functional Problems and Treatment Solutions Following Total Hip Arthroplasty. Podium Presentation., 16th Annual Fall Meeting American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, Gaylord Texan Resort, Dallas, TX, 2006.
9. Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; McMahon, M.; Marker, D. R.; and Mont, M. A.: Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Implant Survival & Risk Factors at 11-year Follow-up. Poster Presentation, 25th Annual Meeting Mid-America Orthopaedic Association, Boca Raton Resort & Club, Boca Raton, FL, 2007.
10. Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Comparison of a Midvastus and Subvastus Approach to Total Knee Arthroplasty. Poster Presentation, 25th Annual Meeting Mid-America Orthopaedic Association, Boca Raton Resort & Club, Boca Raton, FL, 2007.
199
11. Ulrich, S. D.; Mont, M. A.; Marker, D. R.; and Seyler, T. M.: Incidence and Reasons for Wasting Components in the Operative Room. Can this Problem be Reduced? Podium Presentation, 66th Annual Meeting Maryland Orthopaedic Society, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, 2007.
12. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; and Mont, M. A.: The Effectiveness of Gram Stains From Multiple Mediums in Total Joint Arthroplasty. Podium Presentation, 66th Annual Meeting Maryland Orthopaedic Society, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, 2007.
13. Wenz, W.; Akbar, M.; Annefeld, M.; Marker, D. R.; Mont, M. A.; and Seyler, T. M.: Glucosamine Sulfate Therapy Treatment for Articular Damage in Canine Model. Poster Presentation, 53rd Annual Meeting Orthopaedic Research Society, San Diego, CA, 2007.
14. Lancin, P.; Essner, A.; Seyler, T. M.; Mont, M. A.; Wang, A.; and Delanois, R. E.: Effect of Acetabular Cup Abduction Angle on UHMWPE Wear in Hip Simulator Testing. Poster Presentation, 53rd Annual Meeting Orthopaedic Research Society, San Diego, CA, 2007.
15. Lee, D. K.; Hwang, S.; Choi, K. B.; Lee, H. Y.; Yi, Y.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Meschter, C.; Copeland, O.; and Lee, K. H.: Preclinical Studies of Retrovirally-transduced Human Chondrocytes Expressing TGF-Beta1 (TG-C). Podium Presentation, 53rd Annual Meeting Orthopaedic Research Society, San Diego, CA, 2007.
16. Strassmair, M.; Bosebeck, H.; Mont, M. A.; and Seyler, T. M.: The Use of a Type I Lyophilisate Collagen as Osteoinductive Factor in Pseudoarthroses of the Forearm. Podium Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
17. Bhave, A.; Delanois, R. E.; Mont, M. A.; Paley, D.; Plate, J. F.; and Seyler, T. M.: Peroneal Nerve Dysfunction after TKA: Combined Surgical and Physical Therapy Protocol. Poster Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
18. Bhave, A.; Mont, M. A.; Starr, R.; Delanois, R. E.; Marker, D. R.; and Seyler, T. M.: Gait and Strength Analysis for Successful Correction of Functional Problems Following THA. Poster Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
19. Bhave, A.; Seyler, T. M.; Starr, R.; Plate, J. F.; and Mont, M. A.: Analysis and Correction of Pathological Gait Patterns and Functional Problems after TKA. Podium Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
20. Mont, M. A.; Delanois, R. E.; Seyler, T. M.; Plate, J. F.; and Bhave, A.: Botulinum Toxin Type A Injections for the Management of Flexion Contractures Following TKA. Podium Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
21. Marulanda, G. A.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; and Delanois, R. E.: Percutaneous Perforations for the Treatment of Osteonecrosis of the Ankle. Podium Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
200
22. Akbar, M.; Balean, G.; Seyler, T. M.; Mont, M. A.; Ludwig, K.; Gerner, H. J.; and Loew, M.: Do Paraplegic Patients Walk on Their Arms? A Matched Comparison of Paraplegic Patients and Controls. Podium Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
23. Marulanda, G. A.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; and Delanois, R. E.: Technique and Results of Percutaneous Perforations for Avascular Necrosis of the Shoulder. Podium Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
24. Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; McMahon, M.; Marker, D. R.; and Mont, M. A.: Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Implant Survival and Risk Factors at 11-year Follow-up. Poster Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
25. Kolisek, F. R.; Monesmith, E. A.; Jessup, N.; Davis, K.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Total Knee Arthroplasty Utilizing Cementless Keels and Cemented Tibial Trays: Ten Year Results. Poster Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
26. Clohisy, J. C.; Seyler, T. M.; Kolisek, F. R.; Delanois, R. E.; Plate, J. F.; and Mont, M. A.: Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Younger Than 25 Years of Age. Poster Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
27. Delanois, R. E.; Seyler, T. M.; Plate, J. F.; Marker, D. R.; and Mont, M. A.: Selection Criteria for Joint Aspirations as a Diagnositic Test for Infection After Joint Arthroplasty. Podium Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
28. Ketterl, R.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Treatment of Bone Defects Using a Collagen Based Osteoinductive Scaffold. Poster Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
29. Seyler, T. M.; Bhave, A.; Plate, J. F.; Marker, D. R.; Marulanda, G. A.; Delanois, R. E.; and Mont, M. A.: Functional Problems and Arthrofibrosis Following Total Knee Arthroplasty. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
30. Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Plate, J. F.; and Mont, M. A.: Inventing Orthopaedics: From Design to Working Product. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
31. Seyler, T. M.; Bonutti, P. M.; Kester, M. A.; and Mont, M. A.: The Use of an Alumina-on-alumina Bearing System in THA for Avascular Necrosis of the Hip. Poster Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
32. Plate, J. F.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Delanois, R. E.; and Mont, M. A.: Are Gram Stains Necessary for the Diagnosis of Infected TKA? Poster Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
33. Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Marulanda, G. A.; and Delanois, R. E.: Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing in Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head. Poster
201
Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
34. Marker, D. R.; Plate, J. F.; Seyler, T. M.; Delanois, R. E.; and Mont, M. A.: Diagnosing Total Joint Arthroplasty Infections: A Standardized Protocol. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
35. Mont, M. A.; Perez, O. A.; Moskal, J. T.; Hozack, W. J.; Steinberg, M. E.; Stiehl, J. B.; Hungerford, D. S.; Marulanda, G. A.; and Seyler, T. M.: Hip Surgery Complications: Multicenter Study of Femoral Stem Fractures after Total Hip Arthroplasty. Poster Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
36. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Delanois, R. E.; Plate, J. F.; and Mont, M. A.: The Sensitivity of Gram Stains from Multiple Sites in Patients with Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty. Poster Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
37. Mont, M. A.; Bonutti, P. M.; Marker, D. R.; Plate, J. F.; Marulanda, G. A.; and Seyler, T. M.: Minimally Invasive Knee Arthroplasty: Early Complications and Difficulties. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
38. Mont, M. A.; Delanois, R. E.; Plate, J. F.; and Seyler, T. M.: Femoral Neck Fractures Following Metal-on-metal Total Hip Resurfacing. Podium Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
39. Mont, M. A.; Amstutz, H. C.; Boyd, H. S.; Schmalzried, T. P.; Vail, T. P.; Sparling, E. A.; Kennedy, W. R.; Seyler, T. M.; and Goldberg, V. M.: Modern Generation Metal-on-metal Total Hip Resurfacings: Results of a Prospective FDA-IDE Study. Poster Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
40. Mont, M. A.; Jones, L. C.; Marulanda, G. A.; Seyler, T. M.; and Hungerford, D. S.: Effect of Epoetin Alfa on Blood Transfusions During Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty. Poster Presentation, 74th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2007.
41. Bonutti, P. M.; Mont, M. A.; Plate, J. F.; and Seyler, T. M.: Osteonecrosis Of The Knee After Laser And Radiofrequency-Assisted Arthroscopy: Treatment With Minimally Invasive Knee Arthroplasty. E-poster Presentation, 6th Biennial Congress International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Fortezza da Basso, Florence, Italy, 2007.
42. Bonutti, P. M.; Mont, M. A.; McMahon, M.; Ragland, P. S.; and Seyler, T. M.: Minimally Invasive Total Knee Arthroplasty: Complications and Pitfalls. Podium Presentation, 6th Biennial Congress International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Fortezza da Basso, Florence, Italy, 2007.
43. Seyler, T. M.; Bonutti, P. M.; Ragland, P. S.; and Mont, M. A.: Minimally Invasive Valgus Approach to Total Knee Arthroplasty: A comparative Study. E-poster Presentation, 6th Biennial Congress International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Fortezza da Basso, Florence, Italy, 2007.
44. Mont, M. A.; Bonutti, P. M.; Sharkey, P. F.; Hozack, W. J.; Zelicof, S. B.; Kolisek, F. R.; Purtill, J. J.; Rothman, R. H.; and Seyler, T. M.: Clinical Experience Using A
202
Minimally Invasive Surgical Approach for TKA: Early Results of a Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study compared to a Standard Approach. E-poster Presentation, 6th Biennial Congress International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Fortezza da Basso, Florence, Italy, 2007.
45. Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; and Ragland, P. S.: Functional Limits in Patients with Successful Total Knee Arthroplasty. E-poster Presentation, 6th Biennial Congress International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Fortezza da Basso, Florence, Italy, 2007.
46. Mont, M. A.; Marker, D. R.; Ulrich, S. D.; and Seyler, T. M.: The Effect of High Impact Sports on Total Knee Arthroplasties. Podium Presentation, 17th Annual Fall Meeting American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, Gaylord Texan Resort, Dallas, TX, 2007.
47. Bonutti, P. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Marker, D. R.; Mont, M. A.; and Seyler, T. M.: Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Implant Survival and Risk Factors for Implant Failure at 11-year Follow-Up. Poster Presentation., 17th Annual Fall Meeting American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, Gaylord Texan Resort, Dallas, TX, 2007.
48. Seyler, T. M.; Ward, W. G.; Sprinkle, D. I.; and Jinnah, R. H.: Does Computer-assisted Surgery Aid in Shortening the Learning Curve in Metal-on-metal Surface Replacement? Poster Presentation, 20th Annual Congress of the International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty, Paris, France, 2007.
49. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Shilt, J. S.; LaPorte, D. M.; Mont, M. A.; and Frassica, F. J.: Current Literature: An Educational Tool to Study Osteonecrosis for the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination. Podium Presentation, 14th Annual Meeting of Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO), Baltimore, MD, 2007.
50. Boes, L.; Bosebeck, H.; Ulrich, S. D.; Mont, M. A.; and Seyler, T. M.: Collagen-Based Osteoinductive Bone Void Filler for MIS-Treatment in Osteochondritis dissecans and Osteonecrosis. Podium Presentation, 14th Annual Meeting of Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO), Baltimore, MD, 2007.
51. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Srivastava, S.; and Mont, M. A.: Do Modern Techniques Improve Core Decompression Outcomes for Hip Osteonecrosis? Podium Presentation, 14th Annual Meeting of Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO), Baltimore, MD, 2007.
52. Ketterl, R.; Denzel, C.; Bosebeck, H.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; and Ulrich, S. D.: Treatment of Fractures and Nonunions Using Type-I Lyophilisate Collagen as an Osteoinductive Factor. Poster Presentation, 23rd Annual Meeting Orthopaedic Trauma Association, Boston, MA, 2007.
53. Lee, R. K.; Lancin, P.; Bhatt, M.; Essner, A.; Wang, A.; Mont, M. A.; and Seyler, T. M.: Effect of Lubricant Protein Concentration on the Wear of UHMWPE Tibial Inserts in Knee Simulation. Poster Presentation, 6th Combined Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Societies, Honolulu, HI, 2007.
54. Seyler, T. M.; Jinnah, R. H.; Marker, D. R.; and Mont, M. A.: Accuracy Of Diagnosing Periprosthetic Infections By Both Cultures And Tissue Sampling. Podium Presentation, 25th Annual Meeting Southern Orthopaedic Association, The Homestead, Hot Spring, VA, 2008.
203
55. Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Jinnah, R. H.; and Mont, M. A.: Influence Of Athletic Activities On Metal-On-Metal Total Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty Outcomes. Podium Presentation, 25th Annual Meeting Southern Orthopaedic Association, The Homestead, Hot Spring, VA, 2008.
56. Seyler, T. M.; Jinnah, R. H.; Lai, L. P.; Sprinkle, D. I.; and Ward, W. G.: Does Computer-Assisted Navigation Aid In Resident Education And Shorten The Learning Curve n Hip Resurfacing? Podium Presentation, 25th Annual Meeting Southern Orthopaedic Association, The Homestead, Hot Spring, VA, 2008.
57. Whitlock, P. W.; Seyler, T. M.; Smith, T. L.; Poehling, G. G.; and Koman, L. A.: Effect of Strain on a Novel Cell-Seeded Scaffold for Tendon and Ligament Reconstruction. Poster Presentation, 54th Annual Meeting Orthopaedic Research Society, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
58. Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Rudert, L.; Dethmers, D.; Ulrich, S. D.; and Mont, M. A.: Navigation-Assisted TKA versus Minimally Invasive TKA: Benefits and Drawbacks. Podium Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
59. Kolisek, F. R.; Mont, M. A.; Jessup, N.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; and Barnes, C. L.: A Prospective Randomized Study of Posterior-Stabilized vs. Posterior Cruciate Ligament-Retaining TKA. Poster Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
60. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Lee, M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Delanois, R. E.; Akbar, M.; and Mont, M. A.: Does Metal-on-Metal Resurfacing Provide Comparable Results to Standard THA? Podium Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
61. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Martimbianco, A. L.; Delanois, R. E.; and Mont, M. A.: Influence of Athletic Activities on Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty Outcomes. Podium Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
62. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Martimbianco, A. L.; Srivastava, S.; and Mont, M. A.: High Impact Sports After THA: Is the Bearing Type an Independent Predictor of Activity Level? Podium Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
63. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Delanois, R. E.; Ulrich, S. D.; Srivastava, S.; and Mont, M. A.: Treatment of Early-Stage Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
64. Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Kolisek, F. R.; Ulrich, S. D.; Bonutti, P. M.; and Marker, D. R.: Is Functional Improvement After TKA Related to Increased Sports Activity in Osteoarthritis Patients? Poster Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
65. Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Vogelstein, B.; Diaz, L. A., Jr.; Conway, J. D.; Kinzler, K. W.; Foss, C. A.; Ulrich, S. D.; and Pomper, M. G.: Imaging of Musculoskeletal Bacterial Infections by [124]FIAU-PET/CT. Poster Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
66. Mont, M. A.; Ulrich, S. D.; Delanois, R. E.; Marker, D. R.; Akbar, M.; and Seyler, T. M.: Accuracy of Cultures and Tissue Sampling in Diagnosing Periprosthetic
204
Infections? Poster Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
67. Srivastava, S.; Mont, M. A.; Marker, D. R.; Ulrich, S. D.; Delanois, R. E.; and Seyler, T. M.: Clinical Efficacy of rhBMP-2 and rhBMP-7: Meta-Analysis of the Literature. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
68. Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Ulrich, S. D.; Akbar, M.; and Mont, M. A.: Nonvascularized Bone Grafting for Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head. Paper Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
69. Seyler, T. M.; Smith, B. P.; Marker, D. R.; Ma, J.; Shen, J.; Smith, T. L.; Mont, M. A.; and Koman, L. A.: Botulinum Neurotoxin as a Therapeutic Modality in Orthopaedics: 20 Years of Experience. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
70. Srivastava, S.; Ulrich, S. D.; Marker, D. R.; Mont, M. A.; and Seyler, T. M.: Scientific Evidence for the Use of rhBMP-2 and rhBMP-7. Paper Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
71. Ulrich, S. D.; Bonutti, P. M.; Marker, D. R.; Dethmers, D. A.; Reinhold, J. H.; Robinson, Y.; Jones, L. C.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Computer-Assisted Surgery in Total Joint Arthroplasty: Complications, Pitfalls, and Solutions. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
72. Ulrich, S. D.; Childress III, L.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Intra-Articular Injections of the Knee: A Prospective, Randomized Study to Evaluate Pain Intensity. Podium Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
73. Ulrich, S. D.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Morrey, B. F.; and Bonutti, P. M.: Evaluation of a 30-Minute Protocol to Restore Range of Motion in Posttraumatic Elbow contractures. Podium Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
74. Ulrich, S. D.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Robinson, Y.; Delanois, R. E.; and Bonutti, P. M.: Stress Relaxation and Static Progressive Stretch in the Treatment of Shoulder Contractures. Poster Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
75. Bonutti, P. M.; Marker, D. R.; Ulrich, S. D.; McMahon, M.; Rudert, L.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Evaluation of an All-Polyethylene Tibial Component Design in UKA. Poster Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
76. Bonutti, P. M.; Mont, M. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Childress III, L.; Marker, D. R.; Delanois, R. E.; and Ulrich, S. D.: The Use of Stress Relaxation and Static Progressive Stretch in Postoperative Wrist Contractures. Poster Presentation, 75th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Francisco, CA, 2008.
77. Akbar, M.; Bresch, B.; Seyler, T. M.; Bruckner, T.; Carstens, C.; and Abel, R. F.: Fractures in Myelomeningocele: A Trend and Risk Analysis. Podium Presentation,
205
76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
78. McGrath, M. S.; Ulrich, S. D.; Bonutti, P. M.; Smith, J.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Evaluation of Static Progressive Stretch For the Treatment of Wrist Stiffness. Podium Presentation, 76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
79. Ulrich, S. D.; Bhave, A.; McGrath, M. S.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Delanois, R. E.; and Mont, M. A.: Botulinum Toxin Type A Injections for the Management of Muscle Tightness Following THA. Podium Presentation, 76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
80. Akbar, M.; Bresch, B.; Seyler, T. M.; Wentz, W.; Bruckner, T.; Abel, R. F.; and Carstens, C.: Management of Orthopaedic Sequelae of Congenital Spinal Disorders. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
81. Marker, D. R.; LaPorte, D. M.; Seyler, T. M.; McGrath, M. S.; Ulrich, S. D.; and Mont, M. A.: Orthopaedic Journal Publications and Their Role in the Preparation for the OITE. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
82. Akbar, M.; Brunner, M.; Seyler, T. M.; Grieser, T.; Gerner, H. J.; and Loew, M.: Risk Factors for Rotator Cuff Tears in Wheelchair Users? A Case Control Study. Podium Presentation, 76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
83. Bonutti, P. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; McGrath, M. S.; McMahon, M.; and Mont, M. A.: A Comparison of Subvastus and Midvastus Approaches in Total Knee Arthroplasty. Podium Presentation, 76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
84. Marker, D. R.; Ulrich, S. D.; McGrath, M. S.; Seyler, T. M.; Delanois, R. E.; and Mont, M. A.: Factors that Influence Weight Gain or Loss Following Total Hip Arthroplasty. Podium Presentation, 76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
85. Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Boyd, H. S.; McGrath, M. S.; and Mont, M. A.: Pre-operative Evaluation to Determine Surgical Candidates for Metal-on-metal Resurfacing. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
86. Bonutti, P. M.; Seyler, T. M.; Ulrich, S. D.; Delanois, R. E.; Marker, D. R.; McGrath, M. S.; Capello, W. N.; D'Antonio, J. A.; and Mont, M. A.: Effect of Obesity on Clinical Success and Patient Satisfaction in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Poster Presentation, 76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
87. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Blackett, J. W.; McGrath, M. S.; and Mont, M. A.: Patient Expectations Regarding Activity Level Following Total Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty. Poster Presentation, 76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
88. Marker, D. R.; Seyler, T. M.; Bhave, A.; McGrath, M. S.; Ulrich, S. D.; and Mont, M. A.: Does Commitment to Rehabilitation Influence Clinical Outcome of Total Hip
206
Resurfacing Arthroplasty? Podium Presentation, 76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
89. McGrath, M. S.; Bonutti, P. M.; McKenzie, S. A.; Ulrich, S. D.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: Static Progressive Stretch for the Treatment of Knee Stiffness Following Total Knee Arthroplasty. Podium Presentation, 76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
90. Whitlock, P. W.; Van Dyke, M. W.; Poehling, G. G.; Smith, T. L.; Marker, D. R.; Koman, L. A.; and Seyler, T. M.: Functional Tissue Engineering of Tendon and Ligaments. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 76th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, NV, 2009.
91. Seyler, T. M.; Maguire, C. M.; Jinnah, R. H.; and Reichard, S.: Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing in Young Patients: The Role of Femoroacetabular Impingement. Poster Presentation, 26th Annual Meeting Southern Orthopaedic Association, Amelia Island Plantation, Amelia Island, FL, 2009.
92. Maguire, C. M.; Seyler, T. M.; and Jinnah, R. H.: Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing in Young Patients: The Role of Femoroacetabular Impingement. Podium Presentation, 22nd Annual Congress of the International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty, Big Island, HI, 2009.
93. Shields, J. S.; Seyler, T. M.; Maguire, C. M.; and Jinnah, R. H.: Computer-Assisted Navigation in Hip Resurfacing: Learning Curve in the Hands of an Experienced Hip Surgeon. Podium Presentation, 22nd Annual Congress of the International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty, Big Island, HI, 2009.
94. Smith, T. L.; Seyler, T. M.; Van Dyke, M. W.; Poehling, G. G.; and Whitlock, P. W.: Development, Characterization and Cell Seeding of a Naturally-Derived Scaffold for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Poster Presentation, Annual Meeting Biomedical Engineering Society, Pittsburgh, PA, 2009.
95. Smith, T. L.; Whitlock, P. W.; Koman, L. A.; Van Dyke, M. W.; and Seyler, T. M.: Effect of Strain on a Novel Cell-Seeded Scaffold for Tendon and Ligament Reconstruction. Podium Presentation, Annual Meeting Biomedical Engineering Society, Pittsburgh, PA, 2009.
96. Mannava, S.; Callahan, M. F.; Koman, L. A.; Plate, J. F.; Seyler, T. M.; Smith, T. L.; and Tuohy, C. J.: Novel Use of Electromyography (EMG) to Evaluate In Vivo Rotator Cuff Muscle Function After Acute and Chronic Detachment of the Supraspinatus Tendon: An Experimental Study in an Animal Model Poster Presentation, 27th Annual Meeting Southern Orthopaedic Association, El Conquistador, Fajardo, Puerto Rico, 2010.
97. Mannava, S.; Callahan, M. F.; Koman, L. A.; Plate, J. F.; Seyler, T. M.; Smith, T. L.; and Tuohy, C. J.: Evaluation of In Vivo Rotator Cuff Muscle Function After Acute and Chronic Detachment of the Supraspinatus Tendon: An Experimental Study in an Animal Model. Podium Presentation, 27th Annual Meeting Southern Orthopaedic Association, El Conquistador, Fajardo, Puerto Rico, 2010.
98. Seyler, T. M., and Jinnah, R. H.: Clinical Outcomes of Lateral UKA Using an All-Polyethylene Design. Podium Presentation, 27th Annual Meeting Southern Orthopaedic Association, El Conquistador, Fajardo, Puerto Rico, 2010.
207
99. Seyler, T. M.; Jinnah, R. H.; and Plate, J. F.: The Effect of Bearing Type on Postoperative Activity Level After THA. Poster Presentation, 27th Annual Meeting Southern Orthopaedic Association, El Conquistador, Fajardo, Puerto Rico, 2010.
100. Seyler, T. M.; Bosebeck, H.; Buchner, H.; Vogt, S.; Hofmann, R.; Walter, G.; Hirschberger, W.; Stemberger, A.; and Kiokekli, M.: Preclinical and Clinical Experience of a Novel Calcium Sulfate/Carbonate Based Bone Substitute with Antibiotic Release. Poster Presentation, 56th Annual Meeting Orthopaedic Research Society, New Orleans, LA, 2010.
101. Marker, D. R.; Zywiel, M. G.; Stroh, A.; Strimbu, K.; McGrath, M. S.; Seyler, T. M.; and Mont, M. A.: The Use of Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rates and C-Reactive Protein Levels to Confirm TKA Infection. Poster Presentation, 77th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, New Orleans, LA, 2010.
102. Akbar, M.; Doustdar, S.; Hemmer, S.; Seyler, T. M.; Furstenberg, C. H.; Lehner, B.; and Wiedenhofer, B.: Operative Treatment of Spinal Infections: Evaluation of Treatment Concepts from 1996-2008. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 77th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, New Orleans, LA, 2010.
103. Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Bonutti, P. M.; Kolisek, F. R.; McGrath, M. S.; Zywiel, M. G.; Johnson, A. J.; and Mont, M. A.: Athletic Activity Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: Assessment and Outcomes. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 77th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, New Orleans, LA, 2010.
104. Hemmer, S.; Furstenberg, C. H.; Seyler, T. M.; Putz, C.; Ewerbeck, V.; Lehner, B.; Wiedenhofer, B.; and Akbar, M.: Primary and Metastatic Spinal Tumors: Evidence-based Treatment Strategies. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 77th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, New Orleans, LA, 2010.
105. Akbar, M.; Zastrow, R.; Bruckner, T.; and Seyler, T. M.: Upper Extremity Sequelae in Spinal Cord Injuries: An Epidemiological Survey Study of 670 Patients. Podium Presentation, 77th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, New Orleans, LA, 2010.
106. Seyler, T. M.; Whitlock, P. W.; Smith, T. L.; Van Dyke, M. W.; and Poehling, G. G.: A Tissue-Engineered Scaffold Derived from Human Allograft Tissue for Use in ACL Reconstruction. Podium Presentation, OREF/ORS Atlantic Coast Region Resident Research Symposium, Durham, NC, 2010.
107. Mannava, S.; Saul, K. R.; Plate, J. F.; Seyler, T. M.; Koman, L. A.; Smith, T. L.; and Tuohy, C. J.: Rotator Cuff Dysfunction After Acute and Chronic Tears: Translating Animal Studies to Clinical Recommendations Using Simulation Analysis. Podium Presentation, OREF/ORS Atlantic Coast Region Resident Research Symposium, Durham, NC, 2010.
108. Mannava, S.; Saul, K. R.; Plate, J. F.; Seyler, T. M.; Koman, L. A.; Tuohy, C. J.; and Smith, T. L.: Rotator Cuff Dysfunction After Acute and Chronic Tears: Translating Animal Studies to Clinical Recommendations Using Simulation Analysis. Gold Medal Winner of Basic Science Award, Division of Surgical Sciences Research Day, Wake Forest University, School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, 2010.
109. Seyler, T. M., and Jinnah, R. H.: Outcomes of Lateral UKA Using an All-Polyethylene Design. Podium Presentation, 41st Annual Meeting Eastern Orthopaedic Association, The Ritz Carlton Naples, Naples, FL, 2010.
208
110. Smith, T. L.; Whitlock, P. W.; Seyler, T. M.; Northam, C. N.; Van Dyke, M. W.; Poehling, G. G.; and Koman, L. A.: Effect of Strain on the Tensile Properties and mRNA Expression of a Tissue-Engineered Flexor Tendon. Podium Presentation, 2010 Annual Meeting Biomedical Engineering Society, Austin Convention Center, Austin, TX, 2010.
111. Mannava, S.; Tuohy, C. J.; Seyler, T. M.; Stitzel, J. D.; Hayon, S.; Whitlock, P. W.; Smith, T. L.; and Saul, K. R.: The Science of Rotator Cuff Repairs: Translating Basic Science into Clinical Recommendations. Scientific Exhibit Presentation, 78th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, 2011.
112. Mannava, S.; Seyler, T. M.; Pace, L. A.; Whitlock, P. W.; Smith, B. P.; Koman, L. A.; Smith, T. L.; and Tuohy, C. J.: Age-Related Changes Affect Supraspinatus Muscle Function: An Experimental Study in an Animal Model. Poster Presentation, 57th Annual Meeting Orthopaedic Research Society, Long Beach, CA, 2011.
113. Whitlock, P. W.; Seyler, T. M.; Smith, T. L.; Parks, G. D.; Van Dyke, M. W.; and Poehling, G. G.: A Tissue-Engineered Scaffold Derived From Human Allograft Tissue for Use in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Poster Presentation, 57th Annual Meeting Orthopaedic Research Society, Long Beach, CA, 2011.
114. Sikes, C. V.; Brown, P. J.; Danelson, K. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Mannava, S.; Jinnah, R. H.; Stitzel, J. D.; and Lang, J. E.: Biomechanical Analysis of Hip Core Decompression Techniques and Fracture Risk. Poster Presentation, 57th Annual Meeting Orthopaedic Research Society, Long Beach, CA, 2011.
115. Mannava, S.; Koman, L. A.; Seyler, T. M.; Plate, J. F.; Tuohy, C. J.; Saul, K. R.; and Smith, T. L.: Translating Animal Studies to Clinical Recommendations with Computational Analysis for the Study of Rotator Cuff Dysfunction After Acute and Chronic Tears. Silver Medal Winner Integrative Science Category, Post-doctoral Research Day, Wake Forest University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC, 2011.
116. Whitlock, P. W.; Seyler, T. M.; Parks, G. D.; Smith, T. L.; Van Dyke, M. W.; and Poehling, G. G.: Development and Characterization of a Tissue-Engineered Scaffold For Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Derived From Human Achilles Tendon Allograft. Podium Presentation, 8th Biennial Congress International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Riocentro Convention Center, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2011.
117. Schweppe, M. L.; Goddard, M. S.; Seyler, T. M.; Plate, J. F.; Mannava, S.; and Lang, J. E.: A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with the posterior approach in primary THA. Podium Presentation, Annual Meeting North Carolina Orthopaedic Association, Kiawah Island Golf Resort, Kiawah Island, SC, 2011.
118. Plate, J. F.; Mannava, S.; Seyler, T. M.; Saul, K. R.; Pace, L. A.; Smith, T. L.; and Tuohy, C. J.: Age influences Healing and Function of Rotator Cuff Muscles. Podium Presentation, Annual Meeting North Carolina Orthopaedic Association, Kiawah Island Golf Resort, Kiawah Island, SC, 2011.
119. Seyler, T. M.; Pulley, B.; and Lang, J. E.: A Multivariant Retrospective Analysis of Preoperative Nutritional Parameters as Predictors of Outcomes in Joint Arthroplasty. Podium Presentation, 31st Annual Oscar Miller Day Symposium, The Blake Hotel, Charlotte, NC, 2011.
209
120. Plate, J. F.; Stone, A. V.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Akbar, M.; and Mont, M. A.: Are Cultures and Frozen Sections Reliable in Diagnosing Periprosthetic Infections? Podium Presentation, 31st Annual Oscar Miller Day Symposium, The Blake Hotel, Charlotte, NC, 2011.
121. Plate, J. F.; Stone, A. V.; Seyler, T. M.; Marker, D. R.; Akbar, M.; and Mont, M. A.: Accuracy of diagnosing periprosthetic infections by both cultures and frozen sections. Podium Presentation, 99th Annual Meeting The Clinical Orthopaedic Society, Francis Marion Hotel, Charleston, SC, 2011.
122. Plate, J. F.; Stone, A. V.; Seyler, T. M.; Akbar, M.; and Mont, M. A.: Comparison of Dislocation Rates in Patients with large Diameter Metal-on-Metal and Small Diameter Metal-on-Polyethylene Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Podium Presentation, 99th Annual Meeting The Clinical Orthopaedic Society, Francis Marion Hotel, Charleston, SC, 2011.
123. Plate, J. F.; Seyler, T. M.; Halvorson, J. J.; Santago, A. C.; and Lang, J. E.: Non-Anatomic Closure of a Standard Parapatellar Knee Arthrotomy Leads to Patella Mal-Tracking and Decreased Range of Motion. Podium Presentation, Annual Meeting North Carolina Orthopaedic Association, Pinehurst Resort, Village of Pinehurst, NC, 2012.
124. Plate, J. F.; Seyler, T. M.; Halvorson, J. J.; Santago, A. C.; and Lang, J. E.: Non-Anatomic Closure of a Standard Parapatellar Knee Arthrotomy Leads to Patella Mal-Tracking and Decreased Range of Motion. Podium Presentation, 100th Annual Meeting The Clinical Orthopaedic Society (COS), The Palmer House, Chicago, IL, 2012.
210
ELECTRONIC MEDIA
1. Mont, M.A.; Delanois, R.E.; Seyler, T.M.; Plate, J.F. New Treatment Approaches to Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head. In: Marsh, J.L, ed. Instructional Course Lectures, Video Supplement. Vol. 56. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2007.
2. Mont, M.A.; Marulanda, G.A.; Seyler, T.M.; Plate, J.F.; Delanois, R.E. Core Decompression and Nonvascularized Bone Grafting for the Treatment of Early-Stage Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head. In: Marsh, J.L., ed. Instructional Course Lectures, Video Supplement. Vol. 56. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2007.
3. Bonutti, P.M.; Mont, M.A.; Seyler, T.M.; Plate, J.F. Minimally Invasive Total Knee Arthroplasty: The Mini-Subvastus Approach. Orthopaedic Theaters. Vol. 8. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2008.
4. Bonutti, P.M.; Mont, M.A.; Seyler, T.M.; Plate, J.F. Minimally Invasive Total Knee Arthroplasty: The Mini-Midvastus Approach. Orthopaedic Theaters. Vol. 8. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2008.
211
RESEARCH GRANTS
1. Seyler, T. M.; Poehling, G. G.; Whitlock, P. W.; Smith, T. L.; and Van Dyke, M. W.: A tissue-engineered approach to tendon and ligament reconstruction using human Achilles tendon allograft-derived scaffolds. Sponsor: Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation. Amount: Non-Transplantable Tissue Program Grant. Duration: 2007.
2. Seyler, T. M.; Poehling, G. G.; Van Dyke, M. W.; Whitlock, P. W.; and Smith, T. L.: Tissue Engineering of Tendons and Ligaments Using Adipose-Derived Stem Cells and a Novel Naturally-Derived Scaffold. Sponsor: Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation. Amount: $19,230.00. Duration: 7/2008 - 7/2008.
3. Seyler, T. M.; Poehling, G. G.; Whitlock, P. W.; Smith, T. L.; and Van Dyke, M. W.: A tissue-engineered approach to tendon and ligament reconstruction using human Achilles tendon allograft-derived scaffolds. Sponsor: Community Blood Center, Community Tissue Services, Dayton, Ohio. Amount: Non-Transplantable Tissue Program Grant. Duration: 2008.
4. Seyler, T. M.; Whitlock, P. W.; Smith, T. L.; Van Dyke, M. W.; and Poehling, G. G.: ACL Reconstruction in a Rabbit Model using a Novel, Biocompatible Human Achilles Allograft Tissue-derived Ligament Scaffold. Sponsor: Arthroscopy Association of North America. Amount: $24,980.00. Duration: 4/2008 - 4/2010.
5. Tuohy, C. J.; Mannava, S.; Seyler, T. M.; Smith, T. L.; Whitlock, P. W.; and Van Dyke, M. W.: Optimization of bioreactor preconditioning protocols for the maturation of seeded, naturally-derived scaffold. Sponsor: Wake Forest University Intramural Research Grant. Amount: $20,000.00. Duration: 3/2010 - 2/2012.