跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.236.84.188) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/01 18:55
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:張乃仁
研究生(外文):Nai-JenChang
論文名稱:探討骨軟骨再生醫學:生物支架和物理治療之綜合影響
論文名稱(外文):Osteochondral Regenerative Medicine: the Combined Effects with Bio-scaffolds and Physiotherapy
指導教授:葉明龍葉明龍引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ming-Long Yeh
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:生物醫學工程學系
學門:生命科學學門
學類:生物化學學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:英文
論文頁數:126
中文關鍵詞:軟骨骨軟骨修復細胞支架生醫材料生物反應器再生醫學組織工程物理治療連續式被動運動
外文關鍵詞:CartilageOsteochondral repairScaffoldBiomaterialsBioreactorRegenerative medicineTissue EngineeringPhysical therapyContinuous passive motion (CPM)
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1371
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:69
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
衝擊性創傷損傷或重複性負載逐漸造成退化性關節炎或退化性關節軟骨。然而,迄今軟骨修復對於目前臨床上治療仍是一大挑戰。為了解決這些問題,再生醫學工程已開始扮演具可行性在提供更好的解決方案。在骨軟骨修復中,細胞支架和環境刺激是關鍵的要素。細胞支架結合其表面特性和力學刺激已被了解在細胞增生和細胞外基質合成可以扮演關鍵性之影響。仿生理培養環境,如機械性生物反應器顯示對軟骨細胞活性和細胞外基質分泌有益的影響。然而,使用傳統的組織培養生物反應器主要侷限於體外試驗。替代性地,連續式被動運動治療之策略提供移植原位之物理性刺激。膝關節骨性關節炎之物理治療,它供給了在原位的環境刺激,進而促使缺陷修復。連續式被動治療已被證實在臨床上可以減輕疼痛、增加關節缺損處再生功能以及細胞增生。然而,迄今結合物理治療和以細胞支架為基礎之再生醫學,無論在膝關節之高負載受力區或低負載受力區尚未被探討其合併效益。
本研究的目的三大部分: Part I (體外實驗):探討長期體外培養環境下,細胞活性在經過天然材料表面修飾(如:透明質酸、幾丁聚醣)之三維聚乳酸甘醇酸同時結合動態靜水壓刺激後以及材料力學性質變化,並經由體外實驗決定最具可行性之細胞支架應於體內實驗。Part II (兔子動物實驗於高負載受力區):研究工程性無細胞且單層聚乳酸甘醇酸細胞支架結合手術後短期連續式被動運動之物理治療在兔子膝關節骨軟骨(股骨內側髁)缺陷是否具功能性結合效益。Part III (兔子動物實驗於低負載受力區):研究方法雷同於Part II 主要差異在骨軟骨修復結合單層聚乳酸甘醇酸細胞支架結合手術後短期連續式被動運動之物理治療在兔子膝關節骨軟骨缺陷處在於低負載受力區(股骨滑車溝)。
在體外實驗中(Part I),具親水性之天然材料明質酸、幾丁聚醣和透明質酸混合幾丁聚醣經交聯於孔洞性聚乳酸甘醇酸細胞支架材料表面。結果顯示,在所有測試的組別中,透明質酸混合幾丁聚醣之聚乳酸甘醇酸支架有最好的親水性(接觸角= 49.46°)以及有最初抗壓楊氏係數 (1.10± 0.13 MPa)。此外,在親水性修飾後的細胞支架結合動態靜水壓刺激可促進細胞增生與葡萄糖胺酸分泌量 (比起單純只有聚乳酸甘醇酸支架在細胞培養第28天,細胞培養液體裡面含量高達3倍以及細胞支架裡面含量高達15倍)。因此,結合表面親水性修飾細胞支架和動態淨水壓刺激協之同性效益在未來長時間培養工程軟骨是必要的。
兔子動物實驗於高負載受力區—脛骨骨股骨軟骨(Part II),聚乳酸甘醇酸支架結合連續式被動運動組有最好的在再生結果,包含近似正常關節軟骨表面的形成、無關節攣縮、或發炎反應。相反地,兔子關節受限組和兔子自由活動組觀察到關節的退化、關節表面被磨損以及滑液囊炎。經由電腦斷層掃描得到骨質再生密度發現,連續式被動運動組顯著性的高於關節受限組和自由活動組。此外,聚乳酸甘醇酸支架結合連續式被動運動組比無植入聚乳酸甘醇酸支架(缺陷組)結合連續式被動運動組有更好的結果。在術後四週至十二週,下層硬骨之骨小樑厚度明顯的逐漸增加。而且,組織切片顯現出軟骨層的差異性。術後四週,所有植入聚乳酸甘醇酸支架相較於缺陷組在再生修復處有比較好之膠原蛋白結構排列、較高葡萄糖胺酸分泌量。尤其是在植入聚乳酸甘醇酸支架結合連續式被動運動組。術後十二週,良好的骨軟骨修復和透明軟骨的再生組織在植入聚乳酸甘醇酸支架結合連續式被動運動組被觀察到,包含了第二型膠原蛋白表現、成熟骨細胞的出現和骨小樑生成。相反地,在 植入聚乳酸甘醇酸支架結合關節受限組和植入聚乳酸甘醇酸支架結合自由活動組主要顯示纖維軟骨的生成以及有較少葡萄糖胺酸分泌量。因此,本實驗發現早期結合植入聚乳酸甘醇酸支架與連續式被動運動在高負載受力區之骨軟骨再生醫學有顯著性且正向的效應。
兔子動物實驗於低負載受力區—髕骨骨股骨軟骨(Part III),結合植入聚乳酸甘醇酸支架與連續式被動運動亦有較好的骨軟骨修復,包含了平滑的再生軟骨關節面、修復處無發炎反應產生、生成透明軟骨細胞外基質、良好的膠原蛋白排列且是膠原蛋白第二型的生成、較多葡萄糖胺酸分泌量、成熟骨頭生成伴隨著骨細胞和骨基質,亦可清楚觀察軟骨與硬骨間之潮線和適當的聚乳酸甘醇酸支架降解。此外,在下層硬骨修復處,其骨頭修復模式在低負載受力區是骨質先由旁邊朝中心生長、由上而下發展;相對地,在高負載受力之骨軟骨處,其骨頭修復模式是先由旁邊朝中心生長、由下而上發展。總結,本研究發現使用聚乳酸甘醇酸支架結合續式被動運動在低負載受力區之骨軟骨再生醫學亦有正向的效應。
整體而言,就臨床價值與意義,在植入聚乳酸甘醇酸支架前提下,我們建議在膝關節軟骨修復術後,目前復健治療不僅需要被執行,即使只有15分鐘;而且病人被鼓勵在他們可容忍疼痛下,做關節活動無論是靠自己亦或物理治療師介入。
Impact trauma lesions or repeated loadings lead to the progressively osteoarthritis or the degenerative articular cartilage. However, cartilage repair by far is still a challenging issue by all current clinical interventions. To address these challenges, engineered regenerative medicine has begun to play a promising role in providing better solutions. Scaffold, combining with surface properties and mechanical stimuli, has been known to play a critical influence on cell proliferation and extracellular matrix (ECM) synthesis. Mimic-cultivate environments, such as bioreactor with mechanical application, have shown beneficial effects on chondrocyte activity and ECM secretion. However, the use of traditional tissue-culture bioreactors is largely limited to in vitro processing. Alternatively, a continuous passive motion (CPM) strategy has been developed to provide in situ physical stimuli to the transplant recipients. Application of this type of physical therapy in enhancement of quality of wound healing has positively concluded in knee osteoarthritis. CPM treatment has been proven clinically to be able to reduce pain and increase functional activities and cell proliferation in joint defect regeneration. However, scaffold-based regenerative medicine combined with physical therapy has not been conducted to study for its combined benefits.
The purpose of current studies included Part I (in vitro study): to investigate the cell activities and mechanical properties of natural materials (such as hyaluronic acid (HA) or chitosan)-treated biodegradable 3D Poly(lactide-co-glycoide) acid (PLGA) scaffolds with or without in-house hydrodynamic pressure (HP) bioreactor stimulation in long term culture, and determine which scaffold is the possible choice to apply from in vitro to in vivo study; Part II (rabbit animal study in tibiofemoral osteochondral regeneration): to study the effect of combining the functionalities of engineered acellular single-layer PLGA grafts and postoperative physical treatment via short-term CPM for the repair of full-thickness osteochondral defects in the higer-weight bearing (HWB) zone of the femoral medial chondyle. Part III (rabbit animal study in patellofemoral osteochondral regeneration): similar to part II, to study whether it was practical to achieve articular cartilage repair using a PLGA construct in addition to early short-term CPM for treatment of full-thickness osteochondral defects in the lower-weight bearing (LWB) zone of the femoral trocheal groove.
In vitro study (Part I), the natural materials HA, chitosan and HA/chitosan were crosslinked on porous PLGA as a hydrophilic surface modification. Our results displayed that PLGA coated with both HA and chitosan has the best hydrophilicity (contact angle = 49.46°) and initial compressive modulus (1.10± 0.13 MPa) among the tested scaffold groups. Additionally, HP stimulation enhanced cell proliferation as well as GAG production (up to 3-fold in culture medium and 15-fold in scaffolds at 28 days compared to static culture of PLGA alone in the scaffold group) in the hydrophilic-coated scaffold groups. The synergistic benefit from hydrophilic coating and HP stimulation may be imperative in regenerating engineered cartilage in the long term.
Rabbit animal study in tibiofemoral osteochondral regeneration (Part II), the PLGA-implanted (PI)-CPM group had the best regeneration with nearly normal articular surfaces and no joint contracture or inflammatory reaction. In contrast, degenerated joints, abrasion cartilage surfaces and synovitis were observed in the Imm and IAM groups. The achieved bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV) ratio, which was measured using micro-CT, was significantly higher in the CPM group compared with the Immobilization (Imm) and Intermittent active motion (IAM) groups; in particular, the performance of the PI-CPM group exceeds that of the empty defect (ED)-CPM group. The thickness of the trabecular (subchondral) bone was visibly increased in all of the groups from 4 through 12 weeks of testing. However, a histological analysis revealed differences in cartilage regeneration. At week 4, compared with the ED samples, all of the PI groups exhibited better collagen alignment and higher GAG content in the core of their repaired tissues, particularly in the PI-CPM group. At week 12, sound osteochondral repair and hyaline cartilaginous regeneration was observed in the PI-CPM group, and this was marked by type II collagen expression, osteocyte maturation, and trabecular boney deposition. In contrast, the PI-Imm and PI-IAM groups exhibited fibro-cartilaginous tissues that had modest GAG content. In summary, this study demonstrates that early CPM treatment together with acellular PLGA implantation has significant positive effects on osteochondral regeneration in rabbit knee joint models.
Rabbit animal study in patellofemoral osteochondral regeneration (Part III), the better osteochondral defect repair was found in the PI-CPM group corresponded to smooth cartilage surfaces, no inflammatory reaction, hyaline cartilaginous tissues composition, sound collagen alignment with positive collagen type II expression, higher GAG content, mature bone regeneration with osteocyte, clear tidemark formation, and better degradation of PLGA. Specially, the remodeling pattern of bony matrix at the LWB zone in all of the groups is side-to-center and top-to-down; in contrast, the remodeling pattern is side-to-center but bottom-to-up pattern at the HWB zone. In summary, the use of a simple PLGA construct coupled with CPM promotes positive healing for osteochondral regeneration in LWB defects as well.
Overall, in terms of clinical value and relevance, on the basis of PLGA implantation, this study suggests that current rehab protocols after knee cartilage repair surgery should be performed even only 15 mins by either oneself or a physical therapist under affordable painful resistance after surgery.
中文摘要 3
Abstract 6
誌謝 10
List of Tables 14
List of Figures 15
Chapter 1: Introduction 19
1.1 Structure, composition and biomechanics of articular cartilage 19
1.2 Current treatments of cartilage repair 21
1.3 Osteochondral regenerative medicine 25
1.3.1 Scaffold selections 26
1.3.2 Environment stimuli 27
1.4 Purposes 30
1.4.1 Part I (in vitro study) 30
1.4.2 Part II (rabbit animal study in tibiofemoral osteochondral regeneration) 30
1.4.3 Part III (rabbit animal study in patellofemoral osteochondral regeneration) 30
Chapter 2: Materials and Methods 31
2.1 Flow chart of experiment 31
2.1.1 Part I: in vitro study 31
2.1.2 Part II: Tibiofemoral osteochondral defect model in rabbits 32
2.1.3 Part III: Patellofemoral osteochondral defect model in rabbits 33
2.2 Part I: Hydrodynamic pressure and hydrophilic coating 34
2.2.1 Fabrication and characteristics of porous PLGA scaffolds 34
2.2.2 Hydrophilic modification of PLGA scaffolds 34
2.2.3 Surface hydrophilicity (contact angle) 35
2.2.4 Scaffold morphology observation 35
2.2.5 Hydrodynamic pressure bioreactor system 36
2.2.6 The pH changes of scaffold degradation 37
2.2.7 Mechanical properties of cell-free scaffolds 37
2.2.8 Primary chondrocyte isolation, expansion and seeding 38
2.2.9 Cell viability assay 39
2.2.10 ECM synthesis by GAG quantification 40
2.3 Part II: Tibiofemoral osteochondral regeneration by combining CPM treatment and PLGA implants 41
2.3.1 Animal procedures 41
2.3.2 Macroscopic evaluations 44
2.3.3 Histological evaluations 45
2.3.4 Histological and immunohistochemical processing 47
2.3.5 Micro-CT analysis 47
2.4 Part III: Patellofemoral osteochondral regeneration by combining CPM treatment and PLGA implants 49
2.4.1 Rabbit Animal Procedures 49
2.4.2 Gross Appearance and Histological Assessments 50
2.4.3 Histological and Immunohistochemical Processing 52
2.4.4 Micro-CT Measurements 53
2.5 Statistics 54
2.5.1 Part I (in vitro study) 54
2.5.2 Part II rabbit animal study in tibiofemoral osteochondral regeneration 54
2.5.3 Part III rabbit animal study in patellofemoral osteochondral regeneration 54
Chapter 3: Results 56
3.1 Part I: Hydrodynamic pressure and hydrophilic coating 56
3.1.1 Morphology of scaffolds 56
3.1.2 Scaffold hydrophilicity by contact angle 57
3.1.3 pH value changes of degrading scaffold 57
3.1.4 Mechanical properties of scaffolds in a wetted state 58
3.1.5 Cell proliferation 59
3.1.6 Assay of the GAG content 61
3.2 Part II: Tibiofemoral Osteochondral regeneration by combining CPM treatment and PLGA implants 64
3.2.1 Rabbit health 64
3.2.2 Gross appearance and quantitative scores 64
3.2.3 Histologyand total histological scale scores 67
3.2.4 Micro-CT analysis 74
3.3 Part III: Patellofemoral Osteochondral regeneration by combining CPM 77
3.3.1 Gross Appearance 77
3.3.2 Histology 78
3.3.3 Total Scale Scores and Specific Parameters 84
3.3.4 Micro-CT Analysis 86
Chapter 4: Discussion 89
4.1 Part I: Hydrodynamic pressure and hydrophilic coating 89
4.2 Part II: Tibiofemoral osteochondral regeneration by combining CPM 94
4.3 Part III: Patellofemoral Osteochondral regeneration by combining CPM 98
Chapter 5: Conclusions 104
Chapter 6: Limitations & Future works 105
6.1 In vitro study 105
6.2 In vivo studies 105
Chapter 7: References 108

List of Tables
Table 1 The advantages and disadvantages in current treatments of cartilage repair 24
Table 2 Gross morphology assessment scores using modified Wayne’s grading scale 44
Table 3 The histology scoring system 46
Table 4 A modified scale scoring system for gross appearance and histology 51
Table 5 Temporal changes in pH values in different scaffolds 58
Table 6 Mechanical properties of scaffolds in the static and HP groups 59
Table 7 Total histological modified scale scores 74
Table 8 Total scale scores 86


List of Figures
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of articular cartilage (1) 20
Figure 2 Knee joint 21
Figure 3 Current treatment modalities for articular surface damage of varying size and severity. (19, 31-33) 23
Figure 4 Schematic representation of the in vitro study 31
Figure 5 A schematic diagram of the studied design and abbreviation of group names in the HWB zone 32
Figure 6 A schematic diagram of the studied design in the LWB zone 33
Figure 7 (a) Schematic representation of the custom-designed HP bioreactor (b) Culture medium and scaffolds were placed into sterilized bags. (c) Schematic representation of chondrocytes, ECM, and scaffolds surrounded with hydrostatic pressure (arrow). 36
Figure 8 The illustration shows mechanical testing. 38
Figure 9 Surgical procedure and animal care 42
Figure 10 The short-term Imm method for 2 weeks after surgery 43
Figure 11 CPM treatment and the range of motion was set at 60 to 130 degree of flexion. 44
Figure 12 Image recognition and calculation using Micro-CT1076 scanner 48
Figure 13 PLGA constructs were gently inserted into the defect hole via press-fit fixation. 50
Figure 14 SEM images of (a) PLGA, (b) PLGA-HA, (c) PLGA-Chi, (d) PLGA-HA/Chi of scaffolds 56
Figure 15 Water contact angle among four groups 57
Figure 16 Cell proliferation between the static and HP states 60
Figure 17 (a) The GAG content in the culture medium among four types of scaffolds. (b) The GAG content in the culture medium between the static and HP states 62
Figure 18 (a) The GAG content in the scaffold among the four types of scaffolds. 63
Figure 19 Osteophyte formation was observed after operation in Imm group. 65
Figure 20 Gross appearances in three treatments at 12 weeks were observed. 66
Figure 21 The quantitative scores of gross appearance are calculated at 4 weeks 66
Figure 22 The quantitative scores of gross appearance are calculated at 12 weeks 67
Figure 23 The representative inflammatory cells. 69
Figure 24 The histological examinations of the ED and the PI groups. The sections were stained by Masson’s trichrome staining. Square denote magnification scale. 70
Figure 25 Loose body and edema vesicles and hypertrophic chondrocytes were found in the defect site. 71
Figure 26 At 4 weeks postoperatively, synovial-like lining cells (arrow) overlying the fibrous tissues (Left); In PI-CPM group, positive type II collagen (brown color) has been stained at 4 weeks (Right). Square denote magnification scale. 71
Figure 27 Sulfated GAG contents were stained by Alcian blue 72
Figure 28 Dense type II collagen (brown color) at 12 weeks postoperatively, in PI-CPM group, was observed a well-integrated cartilaginous bonding between host and repaired region. 72
Figure 29 Newly boney formation in PI-CPM group was stained by H&E. At 4 weeks after surgery, osteoid (Os) matrix corresponding to surrounding osteoblast (Ob) within pores of scaffold (Sc) was observed. At 12 weeks after surgery, mature osteocyte (Oc) and trabecular bone (Tb) appeared and showed a well-integrated subchondral bone formation. 73
Figure 30 The bone assessment of 2-D micro-CT images 75
Figure 31 The ratio of bone volume to tissue volume (BV/TV) 76
Figure 32 The thickness of trabecular bone (Tb. Th) 76
Figure 33 Gross appearances of regenerating femoral trochlear groove defect at 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. 77
Figure 34 The observation of representative inflammatory cells in the LWB repaired area (subchondral bone). 79
Figure 35 Histological examinations using Masson’s trichrome staining in the LWB repaired area. Square denotes magnification. 80
Figure 36 GAG contents in LWB repaired area were stained by Alcian blue 81
Figure 37 The observations of bone cells and matrix in the LWB repaired area. 82
Figure 38 After 12 wk of implantation, the PCI-CPM group indicated more ordered collagen alignment than ED-CPM and IAM groups using a polarized light microscopy. 83
Figure 39 IHC staining for collagen type II in the LWB repaired area. 84
Figure 40 (a) The 2D bone assessment at 4 and 12 weeks after surgery; (b) 3D micro-CT images at 12 weeks after surgery in LWB zone of femoral groove 87
Figure 41 The ratio of bone volume to tissue volume in the LWB area of femoral trocheal groove. 88
Figure 42 The thickness of trabecular bone in the LWB area of femoral trocheal groove. 88
Figure 43 The mechanism underlying the success in the PI-CPM sample. 97
Figure 44 The activities of the rabbits 100
Figure 45 postulating biomechanical loading in the HWB and LWB area by CPM. 102
Figure 46 The schematic procedures of “one-step surgery, autologous cells, less invasion and pain, and time-consuming”— contributed by peripheral blood derived endothelia progenitor cells (EPC) 107
1.Newman AP (1998) Articular cartilage repair. Am J Sport Med 26(2):309-324.
2.Nesic D, et al. (2006) Cartilage tissue engineering for degenerative joint disease. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 58(2):300-322.
3.Kiani C, Chen L, Wu YJ, Yee AJ, & Yang BB (2002) Structure and function of aggrecan. Cell Res 12(1):19-32.
4.Buckwalter JA & Mankin HJ (1998) Articular cartilage: degeneration and osteoarthritis, repair, regeneration, and transplantation. Instr Course Lect 47:487-504.
5.McWalter EJ, et al. (2011) The effect of a patellar brace on three-dimensional patellar kinematics in patients with lateral patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 19(7):801-808.
6.Pascual-Garrido C, Slabaugh MA, L'Heureux DR, Friel NA, & Cole BJ (2009) Recommendations and treatment outcomes for patellofemoral articular cartilage defects with autologous chondrocyte implantation: prospective evaluation at average 4-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 37:33S-41S.
7.Hunter DJ, et al. (2011) A randomized trial of patellofemoral bracing for treatment of patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 19(7):792-800.
8.Swieszkowski W, Tuan BH, Kurzydlowski KJ, & Hutmacher DW (2007) Repair and regeneration of osteochondral defects in the articular joints. Biomol Eng 24(5):489-495.
9.Mano JF & Reis RL (2007) Osteochondral defects: present situation and tissue engineering approaches. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 1(4):261-273.
10.Durmus D, Alayli G, Aliyazicioglu Y, Buyukakincak O, & Canturk F (2012) Effects of glucosamine sulfate and exercise therapy on serum leptin levels in patients with knee osteoarthritis: preliminary results of randomized controlled clinical trial. Rheumatol Int.
11.Iversen MD (2012) Rehabilitation Interventions for Pain and Disability in Osteoarthritis: A review of interventions including exercise, manual techniques, and assistive devices. Orthop Nurs 31(2):103-108.
12.Loyola-Sanchez A, Richardson J, & MacIntyre NJ (2010) Efficacy of ultrasound therapy for the management of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 18(9):1117-1126.
13.Sinusas K (2012) Osteoarthritis: diagnosis and treatment. Am Fam Physician 85(1):49-56.
14.Uthman I, Raynauld JP, & Haraoui B (2003) Intra-articular therapy in osteoarthritis. Postgrad Med J 79(934):449-453.
15.Legovic D, et al. (2009) Microfracture technique in combination with intraarticular hyaluronic acid injection in articular cartilage defect regeneration in rabbit model. Coll Antropol 33(2):619-623.
16.Gunes T, et al. (2012) Intraarticular hyaluronic acid injection after microfracture technique for the management of full-Thickness cartilage defects does not improve the quality of repair tissue. Cartilage 3(1):20-26.
17.Jackson RW & Dieterichs C (2003) The results of arthroscopic lavage and debridement of osteoarthritic knees based on the severity of degeneration: a 4- to 6-year symptomatic follow-up. Arthroscopy 19(1):13-20.
18.Martin I, Miot S, Barbero A, Jakob M, & Wendt D (2007) Osteochondral tissue engineering. J Biomech 40(4):750-765.
19.Williams GM, et al. (2010) Shape, loading, and motion in the bioengineering design, fabrication, and testing of personalized synovial joints. J Biomech 43(1):156-165.
20.Carranza-Bencano A, et al. (1999) Comparative study of the reconstruction of articular cartilage defects with free costal perichondrial grafts and free tibial periosteal grafts: an experimental study on rabbits. Calcif Tissue Int 65(5):402-407.
21.Matt. (2003) A Patient's Guide to Articular Cartilage Problems of the Knee. From: http://www.eorthopod.com/public.
22.Pascual-Garrido C, Slabaugh MA, L'Heureux DR, Friel NA, & Cole BJ (2009) Recommendations and treatment outcomes for patellofemoral articular cartilage defects with autologous chondrocyte implantation: prospective evaluation at average 4-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 37 Suppl 1:33S-41S.
23.Schüttler S & Andjelkov N (2012) Periosteal transplantation combined with the autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) technique in isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis: a case report. Cartilage 3(2):194-198.
24.Ebert JR, Lloyd DG, Ackland T, & Wood DJ (2010) Knee biomechanics during walking gait following matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 25(10):1011-1017.
25.Dhollander AA, et al. (2011) Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis combined with platelet-rich plasma gel: technical description and a five pilot patients report. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(4):536-542.
26.Hangody L & Fules P (2003) Autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty for the treatment of full-thickness defects of weight-bearing joints: ten years of experimental and clinical experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A Suppl 2:25-32.
27.Kish G & Hangody L (2004) A prospective, randomised comparison of autologous chondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplasty for osteochondral defects in the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(4):619; author reply 619-620.
28.Chan EF, et al. (2012) Association of 3-Dimensional Cartilage and Bone Structure with Articular Cartilage Properties in and Adjacent to Autologous Osteochondral Grafts after 6 and 12 Months in a Goat Model. Cartilage.
29.Johnson LL, et al. (2012) The biological response following autogenous bone grafting for large-volume defects of the knee index surgery through 12 to 21 years' follow-up. Cartilage 3(1):86-99.
30.Brach Del Prever EM, Bistolfi A, Bracco P, & Costa L (2009) UHMWPE for arthroplasty: past or future? J Orthop Traumatol 10(1):1-8.
31.Steinwachs MR, Guggi T, & Kreuz PC (2008) Marrow stimulation techniques. Injury 39 Suppl 1:S26-31.
32.Hangody L, et al. (2004) Autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A Suppl 1:65-72.
33.Jones DG & Peterson L (2006) Autologous chondrocyte implantation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(11):2502-2520.
34.Kuo CK, Li WJ, Mauck RL, & Tuan RS (2006) Cartilage tissue engineering: its potential and uses. Curr Opin Rheumatol 18(1):64-73.
35.Musgrave DS, Fu FH, & Huard J (2002) Gene therapy and tissue engineering in orthopaedic surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 10(1):6-15.
36.Langer R & Vacanti JP (1993) Tissue engineering. Science 260(5110):920-926.
37.Ge Z, Li C, Heng BC, Cao G, & Yang Z (2012) Functional biomaterials for cartilage regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res A.
38.Emans PJ, et al. (2012) Tissue-engineered constructs: the effect of scaffold architecture in osteochondral repair. J Tissue Eng Regen Med.
39.Cheung HY, Lau KT, Lu TP, & Hui D (2007) A critical review on polymer-based bio-engineered materials for scaffold development. Composites Part B-Engineering 38(3):291-300.
40.Baek CH & Ko YJ (2006) Characteristics of tissue-engineered cartilage on macroporous biodegradable PLGA scaffold. Laryngoscope 116(10):1829-1834.
41.Khan YM, Katti DS, & Laurencin CT (2004) Novel polymer-synthesized ceramic composite-based system for bone repair: an in vitro evaluation. J Biomed Mater Res A 69(4):728-737.
42.Ouyang HW, Goh JC, Mo XM, Teoh SH, & Lee EH (2002) The efficacy of bone marrow stromal cell-seeded knitted PLGA fiber scaffold for Achilles tendon repair. Ann N Y Acad Sci 961:126-129.
43.Zhang L, et al. (2006) A sandwich tubular scaffold derived from chitosan for blood vessel tissue engineering. J Biomed Mater Res A 77(2):277-284.
44.Leung L, Chan C, Baek S, & Naguib H (2008) Comparison of morphology and mechanical properties of PLGA bioscaffolds. Biomed Mater 3(2):25006.
45.Lee ES, Kwon MJ, Lee H, Na K, & Kim JJ (2006) In vitro study of lysozyme in poly(lactide-co-glycolide) microspheres with sucrose acetate isobutyrate. Eur J Pharm Sci 29(5):435-441.
46.Yoo HS, Lee EA, Yoon JJ, & Park TG (2005) Hyaluronic acid modified biodegradable scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials 26(14):1925-1933.
47.Rosen J, Strauss E, Schachter A, & Frenkel S (2009) The Efficacy of Intra-Articular Hyaluronan Injection After the Microfracture Technique for the Treatment of Articular Cartilage Lesions. Am J Sport Med 37(4):720-726.
48.Grigolo B, et al. (2009) Osteoarthritis treated with mesenchymal stem cells on hyaluronan-based scaffold in rabbit. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 15(4):647-658.
49.Necas J, Bartosikova L, Brauner P, & Kolar J (2008) Hyaluronic acid (hyaluronan): a review. Veterinarni Medicina 53(8):397-411.
50.Bastow ER, et al. (2008) Hyaluronan synthesis and degradation in cartilage and bone. Cell Mol Life Sci 65(3):395-413.
51.Price RD, Berry MG, & Navsaria HA (2007) Hyaluronic acid: the scientific and clinical evidence. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 60(10):1110-1119.
52.Alves da Silva ML, et al. (2009) Chitosan/polyester-based scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering: Assessment of extracellular matrix formation. Acta Biomater.
53.Sarasam AR, Brown P, Khajotia SS, Dmytryk JJ, & Madihally SV (2008) Antibacterial activity of chitosan-based matrices on oral pathogens. J Mater Sci Mater Med 19(3):1083-1090.
54.Chen SJ, Lin CC, Tuan WC, Tseng CS, & Huang RN (2010) Effect of recombinant galectin-1 on the growth of immortal rat chondrocyte on chitosan-coated PLGA scaffold. J Biomed Mater Res A 93(4):1482-1492.
55.Breyner NM, et al. (2010) Effect of a three-dimensional chitosan porous scaffold on the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells into chondrocytes. Cells Tissues Organs 191(2):119-128.
56.Alves da Silva ML, et al. (2010) Chitosan/polyester-based scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering: assessment of extracellular matrix formation. Acta Biomater 6(3):1149-1157.
57.Tan H, Wu J, Lao L, & Gao C (2009) Gelatin/chitosan/hyaluronan scaffold integrated with PLGA microspheres for cartilage tissue engineering. Acta Biomater 5(1):328-337.
58.Elder BD & Athanasiou KA (2009) Hydrostatic pressure in articular cartilage tissue engineering: from chondrocytes to tissue regeneration. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 15(1):43-53.
59.Nicodemus GD & Bryant SJ (2010) Mechanical loading regimes affect the anabolic and catabolic activities by chondrocytes encapsulated in PEG hydrogels. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 18(1):126-137.
60.Luo ZJ & Seedhom BB (2007) Light and low-frequency pulsatile hydrostatic pressure enhances extracellular matrix formation by bone marrow mesenchymal cells: an in-vitro study with special reference to cartilage repair. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H-Journal of Engineering in Medicine 221(H5):499-507.
61.Carver SE & Heath CA (1999) Influence of intermittent pressure, fluid flow, and mixing on the regenerative properties of articular chondrocytes. Biotechnol Bioeng 65(3):274-281.
62.Concaro S, Gustavson F, & Gatenholm P (2009) Bioreactors for tissue engineering of cartilage. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 112:125-143.
63.Liang S, Slattery MJ, Wagner D, Simon SI, & Dong C (2008) Hydrodynamic shear rate regulates melanoma-leukocyte aggregation, melanoma adhesion to the endothelium, and subsequent extravasation. Ann Biomed Eng 36(4):661-671.
64.Kawanishi M, et al. (2007) Redifferentiation of dedifferentiated bovine articular chondrocytes enhanced by cyclic hydrostatic pressure under a gas-controlled system. Tissue Eng 13(5):957-964.
65.Freyria AM, et al. (2005) Optimization of dynamic culture conditions: effects on biosynthetic activities of chondrocytes grown in collagen sponges. Tissue Eng 11(5-6):674-684.
66.Darling EM & Athanasiou KA (2003) Articular cartilage bioreactors and bioprocesses. Tissue Eng 9(1):9-26.
67.Hu JC & Athanasiou KA (2006) The effects of intermittent hydrostatic pressure on self-assembled articular cartilage constructs. Tissue Eng 12(5):1337-1344.
68.Ikenoue T, et al. (2003) Mechanoregulation of human articular chondrocyte aggrecan and type II collagen expression by intermittent hydrostatic pressure in vitro. J Orthop Res 21(1):110-116.
69.Jhung Y-R (2010) The Application of Hydrodynamic Pressure Bioreactor on Chondrocytes Cultured on 3-D Hydrophilic PLGA Scaffold. Master's degree (National Cheng Kung University, Tainan).
70.Bueno EM, Laevsky G, & Barabino GA (2007) Enhancing cell seeding of scaffolds in tissue engineering through manipulation of hydrodynamic parameters. J Biotechnol 129(3):516-531.
71.Salter RB, et al. (1980) The biological effect of continuous passive motion on the healing of full-thickness defects in articular cartilage. An experimental investigation in the rabbit. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62(8):1232-1251.
72.Kim TK, et al. (2009) Clinical value of regular passive ROM exercise by a physical therapist after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17(10):1152-1158.
73.Howard JS, Mattacola CG, Romine SE, & Lattermann C (2010) Continuous Passive Motion, Early Weight Bearing, and Active Motion following Knee Articular Cartilage Repair. Cartilage 1(4):276-286.
74.Ferretti M, et al. (2005) Anti-inflammatory effects of continuous passive motion on meniscal fibrocartilage. J Orthop Res 23(5):1165-1171.
75.Bruun-Olsen V, Heiberg KE, & Mengshoel AM (2007) Effects of continuous passive motion as an adjunct to active exercises following total knee arthroplasty - A randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 66:516-516.
76.Harvey LA, Brosseau L, & Herbert RD (2010) Continuous passive motion following total knee arthroplasty in people with arthritis. Cochrane Db Syst Rev (3):-.
77.Bruun-Olsen V, Heiberg KE, & Mengshoel AM (2009) Continuous passive motion as an adjunct to active exercises in early rehabilitation following total knee arthroplasty-a randomized controlled trial. Disabil Rehabil 31(4):277-283.
78.Lenssen TAF, et al. (2008) Effectiveness of prolonged use of continuous passive motion (CPM), as an adjunct to physiotherapy, after total knee arthroplasty. Bmc Musculoskel Dis 9:-.
79.Williams JM, Moran M, Thonar EJ, & Salter RB (1994) Continuous passive motion stimulates repair of rabbit knee articular cartilage after matrix proteoglycan loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res (304):252-262.
80.Shimizu T, Videman T, Shimazaki K, & Mooney V (1987) Experimental-Study on the Repair of Full Thickness Articular-Cartilage Defects - Effects of Varying Periods of Continuous Passive Motion, Cage Activity, and Immobilization. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 5(2):187-197.
81.Olivos-Meza A, et al. (2010) Pretreatment of periosteum with TGF-[beta]1 in situ enhances the quality of osteochondral tissue regenerated from transplanted periosteal grafts in adult rabbits. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 18(9):1183-1191.
82.O'Driscoll SW, Keeley FW, & Salter RB (1988) Durability of regenerated articular cartilage produced by free autogenous periosteal grafts in major full-thickness defects in joint surfaces under the influence of continuous passive motion. A follow-up report at one year. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70(4):595-606.
83.O'Driscoll SW & Salter RB (1986) The repair of major osteochondral defects in joint surfaces by neochondrogenesis with autogenous osteoperiosteal grafts stimulated by continuous passive motion. An experimental investigation in the rabbit. Clin Orthop Relat Res (208):131-140.
84.Jin CZ, et al. (2011) The maturity of tissue-engineered cartilage in vitro affects the repairability for osteochondral defect. Tissue Eng Part A 17(23-24):3057-3065.
85.Igarashi T, et al. (2012) Repair of articular cartilage defects with a novel injectable in situ forming material in a canine model. J Biomed Mater Res A 100(1):180-187.
86.Im GI, Kim HJ, & Lee JH (2011) Chondrogenesis of adipose stem cells in a porous PLGA scaffold impregnated with plasmid DNA containing SOX trio (SOX-5,-6 and -9) genes. Biomaterials 32(19):4385-4392.
87.Maehara H, et al. (2010) Repair of large osteochondral defects in rabbits using porous hydroxyapatite/collagen (HAp/Col) and fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2). J Orthop Res 28(5):677-686.
88.Im GI & Lee JH (2010) Repair of osteochondral defects with adipose stem cells and a dual growth factor-releasing scaffold in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 92(2):552-560.
89.Ahn JH, et al. (2009) Novel hyaluronate-atelocollagen/beta-TCP-hydroxyapatite biphasic scaffold for the repair of osteochondral defects in rabbits. Tissue Eng Part A 15(9):2595-2604.
90.Ylanen HO, et al. (1999) Porous bioactive glass matrix in reconstruction of articular osteochondral defects. Ann Chir Gynaecol 88(3):237-245.
91.Brittberg M, Sjogren-Jansson E, Lindahl A, & Peterson L (1997) Influence of fibrin sealant (Tisseel) on osteochondral defect repair in the rabbit knee. Biomaterials 18(3):235-242.
92.Shao XX, Hutmacher DW, Ho ST, Goh JC, & Lee EH (2006) Evaluation of a hybrid scaffold/cell construct in repair of high-load-bearing osteochondral defects in rabbits. Biomaterials 27(7):1071-1080.
93.Oshima Y, Harwood FL, Coutts RD, Kubo T, & Amiel D (2009) Variation of mesenchymal cells in polylactic acid scaffold in an osteochondral repair model. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 15(4):595-604.
94.Fitzpatrick N, Yeadon R, van Terheijden C, & Smith TJ (2012) Osteochondral autograft transfer for the treatment of osteochondritis dissecans of the medial femoral condyle in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 25(2):135-143.
95.Cheuk YC, Wong MW, Lee KM, & Fu SC (2011) Use of allogeneic scaffold-free chondrocyte pellet in repair of osteochondral defect in a rabbit model. J Orthop Res 29(9):1343-1350.
96.Loken S, et al. (2008) Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in a hyaluronan scaffold for treatment of an osteochondral defect in a rabbit model. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16(10):896-903.
97.Shao X, Goh JC, Hutmacher DW, Lee EH, & Zigang G (2006) Repair of large articular osteochondral defects using hybrid scaffolds and bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in a rabbit model. Tissue Eng 12(6):1539-1551.
98.Gao J, Dennis JE, Solchaga LA, Goldberg VM, & Caplan AI (2002) Repair of osteochondral defect with tissue-engineered two-phase composite material of injectable calcium phosphate and hyaluronan sponge. Tissue Eng 8(5):827-837.
99.Wang W, et al. (2010) The restoration of full-thickness cartilage defects with BMSCs and TGF-beta 1 loaded PLGA/fibrin gel constructs. Biomaterials 31(34):8964-8973.
100.Rodrigues MT, et al. (2012) Bilayered constructs aimed at osteochondral strategies: The influence of medium supplements in the osteogenic and chondrogenic differentiation of amniotic fluid-derived stem cells. Acta Biomater.
101.McCanless JD, Jennings LK, Cole JA, Bumgardner JD, & Haggard WO (2012) In vitro differentiation and biocompatibility of mesenchymal stem cells on a novel platelet releasate-containing injectable composite. J Biomed Mater Res A 100(1):220-229.
102.Siu RK, et al. (2012) NELL-1 promotes cartilage regeneration in an in vivo rabbit model. Tissue Eng Part A 18(3-4):252-261.
103.Sakata R, et al. (2012) Localization of vascular endothelial growth factor during the early stages of osteochondral regeneration using a bioabsorbable synthetic polymer scaffold. J Orthop Res 30(2):252-259.
104.Arrigoni E, Lopa S, de Girolamo L, Stanco D, & Brini AT (2009) Isolation, characterization and osteogenic differentiation of adipose-derived stem cells: from small to large animal models. Cell Tissue Res 338(3):401-411.
105.Sternberg H, et al. (2012) A human embryonic stem cell-derived clonal progenitor cell line with chondrogenic potential and markers of craniofacial mesenchyme. Regen Med.
106.Im GI, Ko JY, & Lee JH (2012) Chondrogenesis of adipose stem cells in a porous polymer scaffold: influence of the pore size. Cell Transplant.
107.Lee JM, Kim BS, Lee H, & Im GI (2012) In Vivo Tracking of Mesechymal Stem Cells Using Fluorescent Nanoparticles in an Osteochondral Repair Model. Mol Ther.
108.Miot S, et al. (2012) Influence of in vitro maturation of engineered cartilage on the outcome of osteochondral repair in a goat model. Eur Cell Mater 23:222-236.
109.Hui JH, Buhary KS, & Chowdhary A (2012) Implantation of orthobiologic, biodegradable scaffolds in osteochondral repair. Orthop Clin North Am 43(2):255-261.
110.Laporta TF, Richter A, Sgaglione NA, & Grande DA (2012) Clinical relevance of scaffolds for cartilage engineering. Orthop Clin North Am 43(2):245-254.
111.Cao Z, Hou S, Sun D, Wang X, & Tang J (2012) Osteochondral regeneration by a bilayered construct in a cell-free or cell-based approach. Biotechnol Lett 34(6):1151-1157.
112.Rackwitz L, et al. (2012) Stem cell- and growth factor-based regenerative therapies for avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Stem Cell Res Ther 3(1):7.
113.Marmotti A, et al. (2012) One-step osteochondral repair with cartilage fragments in a composite scaffold. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.
114.Thiede RM, Lu Y, & Markel MD (2012) A review of the treatment methods for cartilage defects. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 25(4).
115.Lee JM & Im GI (2012) SOX trio-co-transduced adipose stem cells in fibrin gel to enhance cartilage repair and delay the progression of osteoarthritis in the rat. Biomaterials 33(7):2016-2024.
116.Nejadnik H & Daldrup-Link HE (2012) Engineering stem cells for treatment of osteochondral defects. Skeletal Radiol 41(1):1-4.
117.Dhinsa BS & Adesida AB (2012) Current clinical therapies for cartilage repair, their limitation and the role of stem cells. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther 7(2):143-148.
118.Fedorovich NE, et al. (2012) Biofabrication of osteochondral tissue equivalents by printing topologically defined, cell-laden hydrogel scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 18(1):33-44.
119.Kumagai K, Saito T, & Koshino T (2003) Articular cartilage repair of rabbit chondral defect: promoted by creation of periarticular bony defect. J Orthop Sci 8(5):700-706.
120.Hung CT, et al. (2003) Anatomically shaped osteochondral constructs for articular cartilage repair. J Biomech 36(12):1853-1864.
121.Wayne JS, McDowell CL, Shields KJ, & Tuan RS (2005) In vivo response of polylactic acid-alginate scaffolds and bone marrow-derived cells for cartilage tissue engineering. Tissue Engineering 11(5-6):953-963.
122.Holland TA, et al. (2007) Degradable hydrogel scaffolds for in vivo delivery of single and dual growth factors in cartilage repair. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15(2):187-197.
123.O'Driscoll SW, et al. (2001) Validation of a simple histological-histochemical cartilage scoring system. Tissue Eng 7(3):313-320.
124.Mainil-Varlet P, et al. (2003) Histological assessment of cartilage repair: a report by the Histology Endpoint Committee of the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS). J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A Suppl 2:45-57.
125.Rudert M (2002) Histological evaluation of osteochondral defects: Consideration of animal models with emphasis on the rabbit, experimental setup, follow-up and applied methods. Cells Tissues Organs 171(4):229-240.
126.Lee CT & Lee YD (2006) Preparation of porous biodegradable poly(lactide-co-glycolide)/ hyaluronic acid blend scaffolds: characterization, in vitro cells culture and degradation behaviors. J Mater Sci Mater Med 17(12):1411-1420.
127.Yoshioka T, Kawazoe N, Tateishi T, & Chen G (2008) In vitro evaluation of biodegradation of poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) sponges. Biomaterials 29(24-25):3438-3443.
128.Chung C & Burdick JA (2008) Engineering cartilage tissue. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 60(2):243-262.
129.Suh JK & Matthew HW (2000) Application of chitosan-based polysaccharide biomaterials in cartilage tissue engineering: a review. Biomaterials 21(24):2589-2598.
130.Hsu SH, Kuo CC, Yen HJ, Whu SW, & Tsai CL (2005) The effect of two different bioreactors on the neocartilage formation in type II collagen modified polyester scaffolds seeded with chondrocytes. Artif Organs 29(6):467-474.
131.Huang AH, Farrell MJ, Kim M, & Mauck RL (2010) Long-term dynamic loading improves the mechanical properties of chondrogenic mesenchymal stem cell-laden hydrogel. Eur Cell Mater 19:72-85.
132.Browning JA, Walker RE, Hall AC, & Wilkins RJ (1999) Modulation of Na+ x H+ exchange by hydrostatic pressure in isolated bovine articular chondrocytes. Acta Physiol Scand 166(1):39-45.
133.Schulz RM & Bader A (2007) Cartilage tissue engineering and bioreactor systems for the cultivation and stimulation of chondrocytes. Eur Biophys J 36(4-5):539-568.
134.Millward-Sadler SJ, Wright MO, Davies LW, Nuki G, & Salter DM (2000) Mechanotransduction via integrins and interleukin-4 results in altered aggrecan and matrix metalloproteinase 3 gene expression in normal, but not osteoarthritic, human articular chondrocytes. Arthritis Rheum 43(9):2091-2099.
135.Heath CA (2000) The effects of physical forces on cartilage tissue engineering. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 17:533-551.
136.Bhat S, Tripathi A, & Kumar A (2010) Supermacroprous chitosan-agarose-gelatin cryogels: in vitro characterization and in vivo assessment for cartilage tissue engineering. J R Soc Interface.
137.Pei M, He F, Boyce BM, & Kish VL (2009) Repair of full-thickness femoral condyle cartilage defects using allogeneic synovial cell-engineered tissue constructs. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 17(6):714-722.
138.Nagura I, et al. (2007) Repair of osteochondral defects with a new porous synthetic polymer scaffold. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(2):258-264.
139.Huang X, et al. (2007) Osteochondral repair using the combination of fibroblast growth factor and amorphous calcium phosphate/poly(L-lactic acid) hybrid materials. Biomaterials 28(20):3091-3100.
140.Okita M, Yoshimura T, Nakano J, Motomura M, & Eguchi K (2004) Effects of reduced joint mobility on sarcomere length, collagen fibril arrangement in the endomysium, and hyaluronan in rat soleus muscle. J Muscle Res Cell Motil 25(2):159-166.
141.Leroux MA, et al. (2001) Altered mechanics and histomorphometry of canine tibial cartilage following joint immobilization. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 9(7):633-640.
142.Sakamoto J, et al. (2009) Immobilization-induced cartilage degeneration mediated through expression of hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha, vascular endothelial growth factor, and chondromodulin-I. Connect Tissue Res 50(1):37-45.
143.Pufe T, et al. (2004) Mechanical overload induces VEGF in cartilage discs via hypoxia-inducible factor. Am J Pathol 164(1):185-192.
144.Kitamura N, et al. (2011) Induction of spontaneous hyaline cartilage regeneration using a double-network gel: efficacy of a novel therapeutic strategy for an articular cartilage defect. Am J Sports Med 39(6):1160-1169.
145.Boopalan PR, Arumugam S, Livingston A, Mohanty M, & Chittaranjan S (2011) Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy results in healing of full thickness articular cartilage defect. Int Orthop 35(1):143-148.
146.Xie J, et al. (2010) Articular cartilage tissue engineering based on a mechano-active scaffold made of poly(L-lactide-co-epsilon-caprolactone): In vivo performance in adult rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 94(1):80-88.
147.Ikeda R, et al. (2009) The effect of porosity and mechanical property of a synthetic polymer scaffold on repair of osteochondral defects. Int Orthop 33(3):821-828.
148.Han SH, et al. (2008) Histological and biomechanical properties of regenerated articular cartilage using chondrogenic bone marrow stromal cells with a PLGA scaffold in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res A 87(4):850-861.
149.Lu L, Zhu X, Valenzuela RG, Currier BL, & Yaszemski MJ (2001) Biodegradable polymer scaffolds for cartilage tissue engineering. Clin Orthop Relat Res (391 Suppl):S251-270.
150.Salter RB, Bell RS, & Keeley FW (1981) The protective effect of continuous passive motion in living articular cartilage in acute septic arthritis: an experimental investigation in the rabbit. Clin Orthop Relat Res (159):223-247.
151.Nishimura K, et al. (1999) Chondroprogenitor cells of synovial tissue. Arthritis Rheum 42(12):2631-2637.
152.De Bari C, Dell'Accio F, Tylzanowski P, & Luyten FP (2001) Multipotent mesenchymal stem cells from adult human synovial membrane. Arthritis Rheum 44(8):1928-1942.
153.Martin-Hernandez C, Cebamanos-Celma J, Molina-Ros A, Ballester-Jimenez JJ, & Ballester-Soleda J (2010) Regenerated cartilage produced by autogenous periosteal grafts: a histologic and mechanical study in rabbits under the influence of continuous passive motion. Arthroscopy 26(1):76-83.
154.Sun Y, Feng Y, Zhang CQ, Chen SB, & Cheng XG (2010) The regenerative effect of platelet-rich plasma on healing in large osteochondral defects. Int Orthop 34(4):589-597.
155.O'Driscoll SW & Giori NJ (2000) Continuous passive motion (CPM): Theory and principles of clinical application. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 37(2):179-188.
156.Chu CR, Szczodry M, & Bruno S (2010) Animal models for cartilage regeneration and repair. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 16(1):105-115.
157.Hurtig MB, et al. (2011) Preclinical Studies for Cartilage Repair : Recommendations from the International Cartilage Repair Society. Cartilage 2:137-152.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊