Novel organ‐slice culturing system to simulate meniscal repair: Proof of concept using a synovium‐based pool of meniscoprogenitor cells

Meniscal injuries can occur secondary to trauma or be instigated by the changes in knee‐joint function that are associated with aging, osteo‐ and rheumatoid arthritis, disturbances in gait, and obesity. Sixty percent of persons over 50 years of age manifest signs of meniscal pathology. The surgical and arthroscopic measures that are currently implemented to treat meniscal deficiencies bring only transient relief from pain and effect but a temporary improvement in joint function. Although tissue‐engineering‐based approaches to meniscal repair are now being pursued, an appropriate in‐vitro model has not been conceived. The aim of this study was to develop an organ‐slice culturing system to simulate the repair of human meniscal lesions in vitro. The model consists of a ring of bovine meniscus enclosing a chamber that represents the defect and reproduces its sequestered physiological microenvironment. The defect, which is closed with a porous membrane, is filled with fragments of synovial tissue, as a source of meniscoprogenitor cells, and a fibrin‐embedded, calcium‐phosphate‐entrapped depot of the meniscogenic agents BMP‐2 and TGF‐β1. After culturing for 2 to 6 weeks, the constructs were evaluated histochemically and histomorphometrically, as well as immunohistochemically, for the apoptotic marker caspase 3 and collagen types I and II. Under the defined conditions, the fragments of synovium underwent differentiation into meniscal tissue, which bonded with the parent meniscal wall. Both the parent and the neoformed meniscal tissue survived the duration of the culturing period without significant cell losses. The concept on which the in‐vitro system is based was thus validated. © 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 34:1588–1596, 2016.     

Multicenter prospective randomized study comparing the technique of using a bovine pericardium biological prosthesis reinforcement in parietal herniorrhaphy (Tutomesh TUTOGEN) with simple parietal herniorrhaphy,in a potentially contaminated setting

The use of parietal synthetic prosthetic reinforcement material in potentially contaminated settings is not recommended, as there is a risk that the prosthesis may become infected. Thus, simple parietal herniorrhaphy, is the conventional treatment, even though there is a significant risk that the hernia may recur. Using new biomaterials of animal origin presently appears to offer a new therapeutic solution, but their effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated. The purpose of this multicenter prospective randomized single‐blind study was to compare the surgical treatment of inguinal hernia or abdominal incisional hernia by simple parietal herniorrhaphy without prosthetic reinforcement (Group A), with Tutomesh TUTOGEN biological prosthesis reinforcement parietal herniorrhaphy (Group B), in a potentially contaminated setting. We examined early postoperative complications in the first month after the operation, performed an assessment after one year of survival without recurrence and analyzed the quality of life and pain of the patients (using SF‐12 health status questionnaire and Visual Analog Pain Scale) at 1, 6, and 12 months, together with an economic impact study. Hundred and thirty four patients were enrolled between January 2009 and October 2010 in 20 French hospitals. The groups were comparable with respect to their enrollment characteristics, their history, types of operative indications and procedures carried out. At one month post‐op, the rate of infectious complications (n(A) = 11(18.33%) vs. n(B) = 12(19.05%), p = 0.919) was not significantly different between the two groups. The assessment after one year of survival without recurrence revealed that survival was significantly greater in Group B (Group A recurrence: 10, Group B: 3; p = 0.0475). No difference in the patients' quality of life was demonstrated at 1, 6, or 12 months. However, at the 1 month follow‐up, the “perceived health” rating seemed better in the group with Tutomesh (p = 0.022). No significant difference between the two parietal repair groups was observed during the follow‐ups with respect to the criterion of pain (using a visual analog scale). There was a significant difference between the two parietal repair groups with regard to the number of days spent in intensive care unit, in favor of the Tutomesh technique (p = 0.010). The use of a Tutomesh bioprosthesis for hernia repair or postincisional hernia in a potentially contaminated workplace reduces the risk of short‐term recurrence without increasing overall comorbidity.