Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Does Demineralized Bone Matrix Enhance Tendon-to-Bone Healing after Rotator Cuff Repair in a Rabbit Model?
Article in En | WPRIM | ID: wpr-890228
Responsible library: WPRO
ABSTRACT
Background@#The purpose of this study was to compare the histologic outcomes of rotator cuff (RC) repair with demineralized bone matrix (DBM) augmentation and those without DBM augmentation and to evaluate the role of DBM for tendon-to-bone (TB) healing in a rabbit model. @*Methods@#Twenty-six adult male New Zealand white rabbits were randomly allocated to the control group (n = 13) or the DBM group (n = 13). Repair was performed 8 weeks after complete transection of the right supraspinatus tendon of all rabbits. In the control group, RC repair was achieved by a standard transosseous technique. In the DBM group, RC repair was achieved using the same technique, and DBM was interposed between the cuff and bone. After 8 weeks, the RC tendon entheses from all rabbits were processed for gross and histologic examination. @*Results@#On gross TB healing, 2 of 11 specimens in the control group were unhealed and no specimen was grossly unhealed in the DBM group (p = 0.421). In the control group, the tendon midsubstance was disorganized with randomly and loosely arranged collagen fibers and rounded fibroblastic nuclei. The TB interface was predominantly fibrous with small regions of fibrocartilage, especially mineralized fibrocartilage. In the DBM group, the tendon midsubstance appeared normal and comprised densely arranged collagen fibers, with orientated crimped collagen fibers running in the longitudinal direction of the tendon. These fibers were interspersed with elongated fibroblast nuclei. The TB interface consisted of organized collagen fibers with large quantities of fibrocartilage and mineralized fibrocartilage. @*Conclusions@#The use of DBM for TB interface healing in rabbit experiments showed good results in gross and histologic analysis. However, it is difficult to draw a solid conclusion because the sample size is small. Further evaluation in the in vivo setting is necessary to determine clinical recommendations.
Full text: 1 Index: WPRIM Type of study: Guideline Language: En Journal: Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery Year: 2021 Type: Article
Full text: 1 Index: WPRIM Type of study: Guideline Language: En Journal: Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery Year: 2021 Type: Article