Comparação de preparações de enxertos ósseos para tratamento de defeitos ósseos críticos em um modelo animal roedor

Resumo

Objetivo Embora enxertos ósseos autólogos sejam o tratamento mais utilizado para defeitos ósseos, a preparação mais eficaz ainda é obscura. Este estudo animal teve como objetivo comparar diferentes preparações de enxerto ósseo autólogo para o tratamento de defeito ósseo crítico no crânio de ratos.

Métodos No total, 122 ratos foram alocados aleatoriamente em três grupos: Simulado, enxerto macerado e enxerto picado. Os espécimes foram submetidos a craniotomias no centro superior do crânio com broca de corte circunferencial de 7 mm de diâmetro. O defeito ósseo crítico produzido foi tratado ou não de acordo com o grupo de alocação do animal. Os ratos foram eutanasiados às 3, 6 ou 12 semanas após a cirurgia e seus crânios foram analisados por histomorfometria, densitometria óssea, nanotomografia computadorizada (nTC) e testes biomecânicos.

Resultados A análise histomorfométrica mostrou maior percentual de preenchimento do defeito ósseo crítico no grupo picado e macerado em comparação ao simulado. A avaliação densitométrica evidenciou maior massa óssea em todos os desfechos de análise (p < 0,05) no grupo picado. Os dados de nTC revelaram um aumento ósseo expressivo no grupo picado em comparação aos grupos simulado e macerado. Os testes biomecânicos mostraram maiores valores de deformação, resistência máxima e rigidez relativa no grupo picado em qualquer momento da eutanásia (p < 0,05).

Conclusões Nosso estudo mostrou que a preparação de enxerto ósseo picado gerou resultados significativamente melhores do que os enxertos macerados no tratamento de defeitos ósseos críticos no crânio de ratos.

Palavras-chave

modelos animais - osso e ossos - regeneração óssea - transplante ósseo

Trabalho desenvolvido no Departamento de Ortopedia e Anestesiologia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brasil.

Publication History

Received: 09 October 2023

Accepted: 18 March 2024

Article published online:
04 September 2024

• Referências

• 1 Klüter T, Hassan R, Rasch A. et al. An Ex Vivo Bone Defect Model to Evaluate Bone Substitutes and Associated Bone Regeneration Processes. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2020; 26 (01) 56-65
• 2 Chiarlone F, Zanirato A, Cavagnaro L, Alessio-Mazzola M, Felli L, Burastero G. Acetabular custom-made implants for severe acetabular bone defect in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020; 140 (03) 415-424
• 3 Gupta S, Teotia AK, Qayoom I, Shiekh PA, Andrabi SM, Kumar A. Periosteum-Mimicking Tissue-Engineered Composite for Treating Periosteum Damage in Critical-Sized Bone Defects. Biomacromolecules 2021; 22 (08) 3237-3250
• 4 Park B, Liporace F, Marwin S. Managing Acetabular Defects in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013) 2017; 75 (01) 37-46
• 5 Nauth A, Schemitsch E, Norris B, Nollin Z, Watson JT. Critical-Size Bone Defects: Is There a Consensus for Diagnosis and Treatment?. J Orthop Trauma 2018; 32 (Suppl. 01) S7-S11
• 6 Padalhin A, Ventura R, Kim B, Sultana T, Park CM, Lee BT. Boosting osteogenic potential and bone regeneration by co-cultured cell derived extracellular matrix incorporated porous electrospun scaffold. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 2021; 32 (06) 779-798
• 7 Hofmann A, Gorbulev S, Guehring T. et al; CERTiFy Study Group. Autologous Iliac Bone Graft Compared with Biphasic Hydroxyapatite and Calcium Sulfate Cement for the Treatment of Bone Defects in Tibial Plateau Fractures: A Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020; 102 (03) 179-193
• 8 Schmidt AH. Autologous bone graft: Is it still the gold standard?. Injury 2021; 52 (Suppl. 02) S18-S22
• 9 Busch A, Wegner A, Haversath M, Jäger M. Bone Substitutes in Orthopaedic Surgery: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Z Orthop Unfall 2021; 159 (03) 304-313
• 10 Diallo AM, Rota S, Boissière M. et al. Osteoformation potential of an allogenic partially demineralized bone matrix in critical-size defects in the rat calvarium. Mater Sci Eng C 2021; 127: 112207
• 11 Taşdemir U, Kirtay M, Keleş A, Çil N, Abban G, Dodurga Y. Autogenous Tooth Bone Graft and Simvastatin Combination Effect on Bone Healing. J Craniofac Surg 2020; 31 (08) 2350-2354
• 12 Spicer PP, Kretlow JD, Young S, Jansen JA, Kasper FK, Mikos AG. Evaluation of bone regeneration using the rat critical size calvarial defect. Nat Protoc 2012; 7 (10) 1918-1929
• 13 Schemitsch EH. Size Matters: Defining Critical in Bone Defect Size!. J Orthop Trauma 2017; 31 (Suppl. 05) S20-S22
• 14 Schmitz JP, Hollinger JO. The critical size defect as an experimental model for craniomandibulofacial nonunions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; (205) 299-308
• 15 Strauss FJ, Kuchler U, Kobatake R, Heimel P, Tangl S, Gruber R. Acid bone lysates reduce bone regeneration in rat calvaria defects. J Biomed Mater Res A 2021; 109 (05) 659-665
• 16 Nettleton K, Luong D, Kleinfehn AP, Savariau L, Premanandan C, Becker ML. Molecular Mass-Dependent Resorption and Bone Regeneration of 3D Printed PPF Scaffolds in a Critical-Sized Rat Cranial Defect Model. Adv Healthc Mater 2019; 8 (17) e1900646
• 17 Luca RE, Giuliani A, Mănescu A. et al. Osteogenic Potential of Bovine Bone Graft in Combination with Laser Photobiomodulation: An Ex Vivo Demonstrative Study in Wistar Rats by Cross-Linked Studies Based on Synchrotron Microtomography and Histology. Int J Mol Sci 2020; 21 (03) 778
• 18 Jiménez G, López-Ruiz E, Antich C, Chocarro-Wrona C, Marchal JA. Models of Disease. Adv Exp Med Biol 2018; 1059: 331-350
• 19 Sirveaux F. Reconstruction techniques after proximal humerus tumour resection. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2019; 105 (1S): S153-S164
• 20 Monir A, Mukaibo T, Abd El-Aal ABM. et al. Local administration of HMGB-1 promotes bone regeneration on the critical-sized mandibular defects in rabbits. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 8950
• 21 Iliaens J, Onsea J, Hoekstra H, Nijs S, Peetermans WE, Metsemakers WJ. Fracture-related infection in long bone fractures: A comprehensive analysis of the economic impact and influence on quality of life. Injury 2021; 52 (11) 3344-3349
• 22 Rolvien T, Barbeck M, Wenisch S, Amling M, Krause M. Cellular Mechanisms Responsible for Success and Failure of Bone Substitute Materials. Int J Mol Sci 2018; 19 (10) 2893
• 23 Bauer J, Liu RW, Kean TJ, Dennis JE, Petersilge W, Gilmore A. A comparison of five treatment protocols for contaminated bone grafts in reference to sterility and cell viability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (05) 439-444
• 24 Caballé-Serrano J, Sawada K, Schuldt Filho G, Bosshardt DD, Buser D, Gruber R. Bone Conditioned Medium: Preparation and Bioassay. J Vis Exp 2015; (101) e52707
• 25 Ashman O, Phillips AM. Treatment of non-unions with bone defects: which option and why?. Injury 2013; 44 (Suppl. 01) S43-S45
• 26 Martinez-Zelaya VR, Archilha NL, Calasans-Maia M, Farina M, Rossi AM. Trabecular architecture during the healing process of a tibial diaphysis defect. Acta Biomater 2021; 120: 181-193
• 27 Hallman M, Driscoll JA, Lubbe R. et al. Influence of Geometry and Architecture on the In Vivo Success of 3D-Printed Scaffolds for Spinal Fusion. Tissue Eng Part A 2021; 27 (1-2): 26-36
• 28 Chan CK, Kumar TS, Liao S, Murugan R, Ngiam M, Ramakrishnan S. Biomimetic nanocomposites for bone graft applications. Nanomedicine (Lond) 2006; 1 (02) 177-188
• 29 Strong EB, Moulthrop T. Calvarial bone graft harvest: a new technique. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 123 (05) 547-552
• 30 Muschler GF, Raut VP, Patterson TE, Wenke JC, Hollinger JO. The design and use of animal models for translational research in bone tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2010; 16 (01) 123-145