Tissue Engineering Applications in Orthopedic Surgery

  • Allison C. Bean
  • Johnny Huard
Chapter

Abstract

Orthopedic surgeons have traditionally utilized either mechanical devices or allograft materials to replace damaged tissues. Limitations of these methods include wear of mechanical devices over time, limited graft materials, infection, and graft rejection, all of which can result in significant morbidity and mortality. In recent years, however, the focus of treating orthopedic-related injuries or diseases has shifted towards the regeneration of functional tissues using autologous cells, which are cells obtained from the patients themselves. This method of tissue regeneration could eliminate the previous problems of mechanical device failure and graft rejection. The potential applications of tissue engineering in orthopedic surgery are vast, and include treatment for many different types of tissues. In this chapter, an overview of the different types of cells being investigated for tissue engineering in orthopedic applications will be presented, followed by an in-depth discussion of muscle- derived stem cells (MDSCs), which have been found to have potential for treatment of a variety of orthopedic-related problems.

Keywords

Stem Cell Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Mesenchymal Stem Cell Tissue Engineering Satellite Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tuan, R.S., Boland, G. & Tuli, R. Adult mesenchymal stem cells and cell-based tissue engineering. Arthritis Research and Therapy 5, 32–45 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deasy, B.M., Jankowski, R.J. & Huard, J. Muscle-derived stem cells: Characterization and potential for cell-mediated therapy. Blood Cells, Molecules, and Diseases 27, 924–933 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zuk, P.A. et al. Multilineage cells from human adipose tissue: Implications for cell-based therapies. Tissue Engineering 7, 211–228 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nakahara, H., Goldberg, V.M. & Caplan, A.I. Culture-expanded periosteal-derived cells exhibit osteochondrogenic potential in porous calcium phosphate ceramics in vivo. Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research, 291–298 (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zvaifler, N.J. et al. Mesenchymal precursor cells in the blood of normal individuals. Arthritis Research 2, 477–488 (2000)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pittenger, M.F. et al. Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science 284, 143–147 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Bari, C., Dell'Accio, F., Tylzanowski, P. & Luyten, F.P. Multipotent mesenchymal stem cells from adult human synovial membrane. Arthritis and Rheumatism 44, 1928–1942 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Qu-Petersen, Z. et al. Identification of a novel population of muscle stem cells in mice: Potential for muscle regeneration. Journal of Cell Biology 157, 851–864 (2002)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gussoni, E. et al. Dystrophin expression in the mdx mouse restored by stem cell transplantation. Nature 401, 390–394 (1999)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thompson, R.B. et al. Comparison of intracardiac cell transplantation: autologous skeletal myoblasts versus bone marrow cells. Circulation. 108, II264–271. (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bruder, S.P. et al. Bone regeneration by implantation of purified, culture-expanded human mesenchymal stem cells. Journal of Orthopedic Research 16, 155–162 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peterson, B., Iglesias, R., Zhang, J., Wang, J.C. & Lieberman, J.R. Genetically modified human derived bone marrow cells for posterolateral lumbar spine fusion in athymic rats: Beyond conventional autologous bone grafting. Spine 30, 283–289 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang, J.I. et al. Chondrogenic potential of progenitor cells derived from human bone marrow and adipose tissue: A patient-matched comparison. Journal of Orthopedic Research 23, 1383–1389 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Irintchev, A. & Wernig, A. Muscle damage and repair in voluntarily running mice: strain and muscle differences. Cell and Tissue Research 249, 509–521 (1987)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peng, H. & Huard, J. Muscle-derived stem cells for musculoskeletal tissue regeneration and repair. Transplant Immunology 12, 311–319 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Asakura, A., Komaki, M. & Rudnicki, M. Muscle satellite cells are multipotential stem cells that exhibit myogenic, osteogenic, and adipogenic differentiation. Differentiation; research in biological diversity 68, 245–253 (2001)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gussoni, E. et al. Dystrophin expression in the mdx mouse restored by stem cell transplantation. Nature 401, 390–394 (1999)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Torrente, Y. et al. Human circulating AC133(?+?) stem cells restore dystrophin expression and ameliorate function in dystrophic skeletal muscle. The Journal of clinical investigation 114, 182–195 (2004)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peault, B. et al. Stem and progenitor cells in skeletal muscle development, maintenance, and therapy. Mol Ther 15, 867–877 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deasy, B.M. & Huard, J. Gene therapy and tissue engineering based on muscle-derived stem cells. Current Opinion in Molecular Therapeutics 4, 382–389 (2002)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qu-Petersen, Z. et al. Identification of a novel population of muscle stem cells in mice: potential for muscle regeneration. J Cell Biol. 157, 851–864. Epub 2002 May 2020. (2002)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cattermole, H.R. The footballer’s fracture. British Journal of Sports Medicine 30, 171–175 (1996)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arinzeh, T.L. et al. Allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells regenerate bone in a critical-sized canine segmental defect. The Journal of bone and joint surgery 85-A, 1927–1935 (2003)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bruder, S.P., Kraus, K.H., Goldberg, V.M. & Kadiyala, S. The effect of implants loaded with autologous mesenchymal stem cells on the healing of canine segmental bone defects. The Journal of bone and joint surgery 80, 985–996 (1998)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bruder, S.P. et al. Bone regeneration by implantation of purified, culture-expanded human mesenchymal stem cells. J Orthop Res 16, 155–162 (1998)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cinotti, G. et al. Experimental posterolateral spinal fusion with porous ceramics and mesenchymal stem cells. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86, 135–142 (2004)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shen, H.C. et al. Structural and functional healing of critical-size segmental bone defects by transduced muscle-derived cells expressing BMP4. Journal of Gene Medicine 6, 984–991 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peng, H. et al. VEGF improves, whereas sFlt1 inhibits, BMP2-induced bone formation and bone healing through modulation of angiogenesis. J Bone Miner Res 20, 2017–2027 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peng, H. et al. Synergistic enhancement of bone formation and healing by stem cell-expressed VEGF and bone morphogenetic protein-4. The Journal of clinical investigation 110, 751–759 (2002)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ahrengart, L. Periarticular heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty: Risk factors and consequences. Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research, 49–58 (1991)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hannallah, D. et al. Retroviral Delivery of Noggin Inhibits the Formation of Heterotopic Ossification Induced by BMP-4, Demineralized Bone Matrix, and Trauma in an Animal Model. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery—Series A 86, 80–91 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Minas, T. & Nehrer, S. Current concepts in the treatment of articular cartilage defects. Orthopedics 20, 525–538 (1997)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brittberg, M. et al. Treatment of deep cartilage defects in the knee with autologous chondrocyte transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine 331, 889–895 (1994)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Magne, D., Vinatier, C., Julien, M., Weiss, P. & Guicheux, J. Mesenchymal stem cell therapy to rebuild cartilage. Trends in Molecular Medicine 11, 519–526 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sethe, S., Scutt, A. & Stolzing, A. Aging of mesenchymal stem cells. Ageing research reviews 5, 91–116 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Adachi, N. et al. Muscle derived, cell based ex vivo gene therapy for treatment of full thickness articular cartilage defects. The Journal of rheumatology 29, 1920–1930 (2002)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kuroda, R. et al. Cartilage repair using bone morphogenetic protein 4 and muscle-derived stem cells. Arthritis and Rheumatism 54, 433–442 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Li, Y. & Huard, J. Differentiation of muscle-derived cells into myofibroblasts in injured skeletal muscle. The American journal of pathology 161, 895–907 (2002)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shen, W., Li, Y., Tang, Y., Cummins, J. & Huard, J. NS-398, a cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitor, delays skeletal muscle healing by decreasing regeneration and promoting fibrosis. The American journal of pathology 167, 1105–1117 (2005)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sato, K. et al. Improvement of muscle healing through enhancement of muscle regeneration and prevention of fibrosis. Muscle & nerve 28, 365–372 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Foster, W., Li, Y., Usas, A., Somogyi, G. & Huard, J. Gamma interferon as an antifibrosis agent in skeletal muscle. J Orthop Res 21, 798–804 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li, Y. et al. Transforming growth factor-beta1 induces the differentiation of myogenic cells into fibrotic cells in injured skeletal muscle: a key event in muscle fibrogenesis. The American journal of pathology 164, 1007–1019 (2004)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fukushima, K. et al. The use of an antifibrosis agent to improve muscle recovery after laceration. The American journal of sports medicine 29, 394–402 (2001)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chan, Y.S., Li, Y., Foster, W., Fu, F.H. & Huard, J. The use of suramin, an antifibrotic agent, to improve muscle recovery after strain injury. The American journal of sports medicine 33, 43–51 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chan, Y.S. et al. Antifibrotic effects of suramin in injured skeletal muscle after laceration. J Appl Physiol 95, 771–780 (2003)PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allison C. Bean
    • 1
  • Johnny Huard
    • 1
  1. 1.Stem Cell Research CenterChildren’s Hospital of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations