Advertisement

Recent Advances in Tissue Engineering Strategies for the Treatment of Joint Damage

  • Makeda K. Stephenson
  • Ashley L. Farris
  • Warren L. GraysonEmail author
Osteoarthritis (M Goldring, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Osteoarthritis

Abstract

Purpose of Review

While the clinical potential of tissue engineering for treating joint damage has yet to be realized, research and commercialization efforts in the field are geared towards overcoming major obstacles to clinical translation, as well as towards achieving engineered grafts that recapitulate the unique structures, function, and physiology of the joint. In this review, we describe recent advances in technologies aimed at obtaining biomaterials, stem cells, and bioreactors that will enable the development of effective tissue-engineered treatments for repairing joint damage.

Recent Findings

3D printing of scaffolds is aimed at improving the mechanical structure and microenvironment necessary for bone regeneration within a damaged joint. Advances in our understanding of stem cell biology and cell manufacturing processes are informing translational strategies for the therapeutic use of allogeneic and autologous cells. Finally, bioreactors used in combination with cells and biomaterials are promising strategies for generating large tissue grafts for repairing damaged tissues in pre-clinical models.

Summary

Together, these advances along with ongoing research directions are making tissue engineering increasingly viable for the treatment of joint damage.

Keywords

Bone tissue engineering Additive manufacturing Joint disease Design control Bioreactors Stem cell manufacturing 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

MKS and ALF declare that they have no conflicts of interests. WLG owns stock in EpiBone.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Dieleman JL, Baral R, Birger M, et al. US spending on personal health care and public health, 1996–2013. Jama. 2016;316:2627.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bowland P, Ingham E, Jennings L, et al. Review of the biomechanics and biotribology of osteochondral grafts used for surgical interventions in the knee. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2015;229:879–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang L, Detamore MS. Tissue engineering the mandibular condyle. Tissue Eng. 2007;13:1955–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    • Jakus AE, Rutz AL, Jordan SW, et al. Hyperelastic “bone”: a highly versatile, growth factor-free, osteoregenerative, scalable, and surgically friendly biomaterial. Sci Transl med. 2016;8:358ra127. LP-358ra127. This paper describes the development and testing of a novel high mineral content, high flexibility polymer composite for 3D printing. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    • Hung BP, Naved BA, Nyberg EL, et al. Three-dimensional printing of bone extracellular matrix for craniofacial regeneration. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2016;2:1806–16. This paper describes the development of a mineral polymer composite material with tunable osteogenic protperties that can be manufactureed via 3D printing. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nyberg E, Rindone A, Dorafshar A, et al. Comparison of 3D-printed poly-ε-caprolactone scaffolds functionalized with tricalcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite, bio-oss, or decellularized bone matrix. Tissue Eng A. 2016;23(3):503–14.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheng A, Humayun A, Cohen DJ, et al. Additively manufactured 3D porous Ti-6Al-4V constructs mimic trabecular bone structure and regulate osteoblast proliferation, differentiation and local factor production in a porosity and surface roughness dependent manner. Biofabrication. 2014;6:45007.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muth JT, Dixon PG, Woish L, et al. Architected cellular ceramics with tailored stiffness via direct foam writing. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114:1832–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shuai C, Gao C, Nie Y, et al. Structure and properties of nano-hydroxypatite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering with a selective laser sintering system. Nanotechnology. 2011;22:285703.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    • Hollister SJ, Flanagan CL, Morrison RJ, et al. Integrating image-based design and 3D biomaterial printing to create patient specific devices within a design control framework for clinical translation. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2016;2:1827–36. This paper describes the development, verification, and validation of an orthopedic scaffold using a translation focused design control approach. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shimomura K, Moriguchi Y, Ando W, et al. Osteochondral repair using a scaffold-free tissue-engineered construct derived from synovial mesenchymal stem cells and a hydroxyapatite-based artificial bone. Tissue Eng Part a. 2014;20:2291–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alexander PG, Gottardi R, Lin H, et al. Three-dimensional osteogenic and chondrogenic systems to model osteochondral physiology and degenerative joint diseases. Exp Biol Med. 2014;239(9):1080–95.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bian W, Lian Q, Li D, et al. Morphological characteristics of cartilage-bone transitional structures in the human knee joint and CAD design of an osteochondral scaffold. Biomed Eng Online. 2016;15:82.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palaganas JO, de Leon AC, Mangadlao JD, et al. Facile preparation of photocurable silicon composite for 3D printing. Macromol Mater Eng. 2017;302:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morrison RJ, Kashlan KN, Flanangan CL, et al. Regulatory considerations in the design and manufacturing of implantable 3D-printed medical devices. Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8:594–600.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    •• Hollister SJ, Flanagan CL, Zopf DA, et al. Design control for clinical translation of 3D printed modular scaffolds. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43:774–86. This review outlines the benefits and application of a design control approach to tissue engineering in lieu of an exclusively discovery-driven approach. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Duda GN, Grainger DW, Frisk ML, et al. Changing the mindset in life sciences toward translation: a consensus. Sci Transl med. 2014;6:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Volk H, Stevens MM, Mooney DJ, et al. Key elements for nourishing the translational research environment. Sci Transl med. 2015;7:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Bhumiratana S, Bernhard JC, Alfi DM, et al. Tissue-engineered autologous grafts for facial bone reconstruction. Sci Transl med. 2016;8:343ra83. This study demonstrates a complete, patient spesific tissue engineering treatment scheme in a preclinical porcine model. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Challis VJ, Guest JK, Grotowski JF, et al. Computationally generated cross-property bounds for stiffness and fluid permeability using topology optimization. Int J Solids Struct Elsevier Ltd. 2012;49:3397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kang H, Lin CY, Hollister SJ. Topology optimization of three dimensional tissue engineering scaffold architectures for prescribed bulk modulus and diffusivity. Struct Multidiscip Optim. 2010;42:633–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wieding J, Wolf A, Bader R. Numerical optimization of open-porous bone scaffold structures to match the elastic properties of human cortical bone. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater Elsevier. 2014;37:56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hendrikson WJ, Deegan AJ, Yang Y, et al. Influence of additive manufactured scaffold architecture on the distribution of surface strains and fluid flow shear stresses and expected osteochondral cell differentiation. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2017;5:1–11.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Uth N, Mueller J, Smucker B, et al. Validation of scaffold design optimization in bone tissue engineering: finite element modeling versus designed experiments. Biofabrication. 2017;9:15023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mohan N, Gupta V, Sridharan BP, et al. Microsphere-based gradient implants for osteochondral regeneration: a long-term study in sheep. Regen med. 2015;10:709–28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang S, Chen L, Jiang Y, et al. Bi-layer collagen/microporous electrospun nanofiber scaffold improves the osteochondral regeneration. Acta Biomater. 2013;9:7236–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Murata D, Tokunaga S, Tamura T, et al. A preliminary study of osteochondral regeneration using a scaffold-free three-dimensional construct of porcine adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells. J Orthop Surg res. 2015;10:35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Levingstone TJ, Thompson E, Matsiko A, et al. Multi-layered collagen-based scaffolds for osteochondral defect repair in rabbits. Acta Biomater Acta Materialia Inc. 2016;32:149–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Phinney DG, Sensebe L, Sensebé L. Mesenchymal stromal cells: misconceptions and evolving concepts. Cytotherapy. 2013;15:140–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hung BP, Hutton DL, Kozielski KL, et al. Platelet-derived growth factor BB enhances osteogenesis of adipose-derived but not bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal/stem cells. Stem Cells. 2015;33(9):2773–84.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Batouli S, Miura M, Brahim J, et al. Comparison of stem-cell-mediated osteogenesis and dentinogenesis. J Dent res. 2003;82:976–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wegmeyer H, Bröske A-M, Leddin M, et al. Mesenchymal stromal cell characteristics vary depending on their origin. Stem Cells dev. 2013;22:2606–18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rossini A, Frati C, Lagrasta C, et al. Human cardiac and bone marrow stromal cells exhibit distinctive properties related to their origin. Cardiovasc res Oxford University Press. 2011;89:650–60.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Li C, Wu X, Tong J, et al. Comparative analysis of human mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow and adipose tissue under xeno-free conditions for cell therapy. Stem Cell res. Ther. 2015;6:55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kohli N, Wright KT, Sammons RL, et al. An in vitro comparison of the incorporation, growth, and chondrogenic potential of human bone marrow versus adipose tissue mesenchymal stem cells in clinically relevant cell scaffolds used for cartilage repair. Cartilage. 2015;6:252–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Strioga M, Viswanathan S, Darinskas A, et al. Same or not the same? Comparison of adipose tissue-derived versus bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem and stromal cells. Stem Cells dev. 2012;21:2724–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stolzing A, Jones E, McGonagle D, et al. Age-related changes in human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells: consequences for cell therapies. Mech Ageing dev. 2008;129:163–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhou S, Greenberger JS, Epperly MW, et al. Age-related intrinsic changes in human bone-marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells and their differentiation to osteoblasts. Aging Cell. 2008;7:335–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cosmetic Surgery National Data Bank Statistics. Aesthet Surg J 2015; 35 suppl_2): 1-24.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vangsness CT, Sternberg H, Harris L. Umbilical cord tissue offers the greatest number of harvestable mesenchymal stem cells for research and clinical application: a literature review of different harvest sites. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2015;31:1836–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Allsopp R. Telomere length and iPSC re-programming: survival of the longest. Cell res Nature Publishing Group. 2012;22:614–5.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ko J-Y, Kim K-I, Park S, et al. In vitro chondrogenesis and in vivo repair of osteochondral defect with human induced pluripotent stem cells. Biomaterials. 2014;35:3571–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kang H, Shih Y-RV, Nakasaki M, et al. Small molecule-driven direct conversion of human pluripotent stem cells into functional osteoblasts. Sci Adv Am Assoc Adv Sci. 2016;2:e1600691.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Revilla A, González C, Iriondo A, et al. Current advances in the generation of human iPS cells: implications in cell-based regenerative medicine. J Tissue Eng Regen med. 2016;10:893–907.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Paquet D, Kwart D, Chen A, et al. Efficient introduction of specific homozygous and heterozygous mutations using CRISPR/Cas9. Nature. 2016;533:125–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mandegar MA, Huebsch N, Frolov EB, et al. CRISPR interference efficiently induces specific and reversible gene silencing in human iPSCs. Cell Stem Cell. 2016;18:541–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brown JC, Shang H, Li Y, et al. Isolation of adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction cells using a novel point-of-care device: cell characterization and review of the literature. Tissue Eng C Methods. 2017;ten.TEC.2016.0377.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Aronowitz JA, Lockhart RA, Hakakian CS, et al. Adipose stromal vascular fraction isolation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;132:932e–9e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Oberbauer E, Steffenhagen C, Wurzer C, et al. Enzymatic and non-enzymatic isolation systems for adipose tissue-derived cells: current state of the art. Cell Regen (London, England). 2015;4:7.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Soler R, Orozco L, Munar A, et al. Final results of a phase I–II trial using ex vivo expanded autologous mesenchymal stromal cells for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee confirming safety and suggesting cartilage regeneration. Knee. 2016;23:647–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Orozco L, Munar A, Soler R, et al. Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with autologous mesenchymal stem cells: a pilot study. Transplantation. 2013;95(12):1535–41.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Orozco L, Munar A, Soler R, et al. Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with autologous mesenchymal stem cells: two year follow up results. Transplantation. 2014;97(11):e66–8.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Davatchi F, Sadeghi Abdollahi B, Mohyeddin M, et al. Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for knee osteoarthritis: 5 years follow-up of three patients. Int J Rheum dis. 2016;19:219–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Davatchi F, Sadeghi Abdollahi B, Mohyeddin M, et al. Mesenchymal stem cell therapy for knee osteoarthritis. Preliminary report of four patients. Int. J Rheum dis. 2011;14:211–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wong KL, Lee KBL, Tai BC, et al. Injectable cultured bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in Varus knees with cartilage defects undergoing high tibial osteotomy: a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial with 2 years’ follow-up. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2013;29:2020–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lamo-Espinosa JM, Mora G, Blanco JF, et al. Intra-articular injection of two different doses of autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells versus hyaluronic acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial (phase I/II). J Transl med. 2016:14, 246.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vega A, Martín-Ferrero MA, Del Canto F, et al. Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with allogeneic bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Transplantation. 2015;99:1681–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gupta PK, Chullikana A, Rengasamy M, et al. Efficacy and safety of adult human bone marrow-derived, cultured, pooled, allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells (Stempeucel®): preclinical and clinical trial in osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Arthritis res Ther. 2016;18:301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pers Y-M, Rackwitz L, Ferreira R, et al. Adipose mesenchymal stromal cell-based therapy for severe osteoarthritis of the knee: a phase I dose-escalation trial. Stem Cells Transl med Alpha Med Press. 2016;5:847–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jo CH, Lee YG, Shin WH, et al. Intra-articular injection of mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a proof-of-concept clinical trial. Stem Cells. 2014;32:1254–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Koh Y-G, Kwon O-R, Kim Y-S, et al. Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells with microfracture versus microfracture alone: 2-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2016;32:97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Park Y-B, Ha C-W, Lee C-H, et al. Cartilage regeneration in osteoarthritic patients by a composite of allogeneic umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells and hyaluronate hydrogel: results from a clinical trial for safety and proof-of-concept with 7 years of extended follow-up. Stem Cells Transl med. 2017;6:613–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Giannotti S, Trombi L, Bottai V, et al. Use of autologous human mesenchymal stromal cell/fibrin clot constructs in upper limb non-unions: long-term assessment. Goncalves R, editor. PLoS One. 2013;8:e73893.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    • Saxer F, Scherberich A, Todorov A, et al. Implantation of stromal vascular fraction pro-genitors at bone fracture sites: from a rat model to a first-in-man study. Stem Cell. 2016;34(12):2956–66. This study demonstrates the safety of using autologous adipose-derived stem cells in the clinic for treatment of osteoporotic bone fractures. Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wuchter P, Vetter M, Saffrich R, et al. Evaluation of GMP-compliant culture media for in vitro expansion of human bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells. Exp Hematol. 2016;44:508–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Escobar CH, Chaparro O. Xeno-free extraction, culture, and cryopreservation of human adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells Transl med. 2016;5:358–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Al-Saqi SH, Saliem M, Quezada HC, et al. Defined serum- and xeno-free cryopreservation of mesenchymal stem cells. Cell Tissue Bank. 2015;16:181–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bobis-Wozowicz S, Kmiotek K, Kania K, et al. Diverse impact of xeno-free conditions on biological and regenerative properties of hUC-MSCs and their extracellular vesicles. J Mol med. 2017;95:205–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wang J, Hao J, Bai D, et al. Generation of clinical-grade human induced pluripotent stem cells in xeno-free conditions. Stem Cell res Ther. 2015;6:223.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Vives J, Oliver-Vila I, Pla A. Quality compliance in the shift from cell transplantation to cell therapy in non-pharma environments. Cytotherapy. 2015;17:1009–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gálvez P, Clares B, Bermejo M, et al. Standard requirement of a microbiological quality control program for the manufacture of human mesenchymal stem cells for clinical use. Stem Cells dev. 2014;23:1074–83. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 140 Huguenot Street, 3rd Floor New Rochelle, NY 10801 USA CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    •• Codinach M, Blanco M, Ortega I, et al. Design and validation of a consistent and reproducible manufacture process for the production of clinical-grade bone marrow-derived multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. Cytotherapy. 2016;18:1197–208. This study describes the development and testing of a standarized manufacturing process for bone marrow derrived mesenchymal stem cells. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sladkova M, de Peppo G. Bioreactor systems for human bone tissue engineering. Pro. 2014;2:494–525.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Salter E, Goh B, Hung B, et al. Bone tissue engineering bioreactors: a role in the clinic? Tissue Eng Part B rev. 2012;18:62–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yeatts AB, Choquette DT, Fisher JP. Bioreactors to influence stem cell fate: augmentation of mesenchymal stem cell signaling pathways via dynamic culture systems. Biochim Biophys Acta - gen Subj. 2013;1830:2470–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Grayson WL, Fröhlich M, Yeager K, et al. Engineering anatomically shaped human bone grafts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S a. 2010;107:3299–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Li H, Sun S, Liu H, et al. Use of a biological reactor and platelet-rich plasma for the construction of tissue-engineered bone to repair articular cartilage defects. Exp Ther med. 2016;12:711–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ding M, Henriksen SS, Wendt D, et al. An automated perfusion bioreactor for the streamlined production of engineered osteogenic grafts. J Biomed Mater res - Part B Appl Biomater. 2016;104:532–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kleinhans C, Mohan RR, Vacun G, et al. A perfusion bioreactor system efficiently generates cell-loaded bone substitute materials for addressing critical size bone defects. Biotechnol J. 2015;10:1727–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Makeda K. Stephenson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ashley L. Farris
    • 1
    • 2
  • Warren L. Grayson
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Translational Tissue Engineering CenterJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Institute for NanoBioTechnology, Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations