Tendon tissue engineering: Progress, challenges, and translation to the clinic

Department of Biomedical Engineering, 852 Engineering Research Center, University of Cincinnati, 2901 Woodside Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0048, USA.
Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions (Impact Factor: 1.74). 06/2011; 11(2):163-73.
Source: PubMed


The tissue engineering field has made great strides in understanding how different aspects of tissue engineered constructs (TECs) and the culture process affect final tendon repair. However, there remain significant challenges in developing strategies that will lead to a clinically effective and commercially successful product. In an effort to increase repair quality, a better understanding of normal development, and how it differs from adult tendon healing, may provide strategies to improve tissue engineering. As tendon tissue engineering continues to improve, the field needs to employ more clinically relevant models of tendon injury such as degenerative tendons. We need to translate successes to larger animal models to begin exploring the clinical implications of our treatments. By advancing the models used to validate our TECs, we can help convince our toughest customer, the surgeon, that our products will be clinically efficacious. As we address these challenges in musculoskeletal tissue engineering, the field still needs to address the commercialization of products developed in the laboratory. TEC commercialization faces numerous challenges because each injury and patient is unique. This review aims to provide tissue engineers with a summary of important issues related to engineering tendon repairs and potential strategies for producing clinically successful products.

Download full-text


Available from: Kirsten R C Kinneberg,
79 Reads
  • Source
    • "Collagen molecules are the best biomaterial used to reconstruct the injured tissues in vivo [12], [13], [15], [16]. These molecules are biocompatible, biodegradable and attract the fibroblasts and inflammatory cells [12], [13], [27], [28]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Healing of large tendon defects is challenging. We studied the role of collagen implant with or without polydioxanone (PDS) sheath on the healing of a large Achilles tendon defect model, in rabbits. Sixty rabbits were divided into three groups. A 2 cm gap was created in the left Achilles tendon of all rabbits. In the control lesions, no implant was used. The other two groups were reconstructed by collagen and collagen-PDS implants respectively. The animals were clinically examined at weekly intervals and their lesions were observed by ultrasonography. Blood samples were obtained from the animals and were assessed for hematological analysis and determination of serum PDGF level, at 60 days post injury (DPI). The animals were then euthanized and their lesions were assessed for gross and histopathology, scanning electron microscopy, biomechanical testing, dry matter and hydroxyproline content. Another 65 pilot animals were also studied grossly and histopathologically to define the host implant interaction and graft incorporation at serial time points. The treated animals gained significantly better clinical scoring compared to the controls. Treatment with collagen and collagen-PDS implants significantly increased the biomechanical properties of the lesions compared to the control tendons at 60DPI (P<0.05). The tissue engineered implants also reduced peritendinous adhesion, muscle fibrosis and atrophy, and increased ultrasonographical echogenicity and homogenicity, maturation and differentiation of the collagen fibrils and fibers, tissue alignment and volume of the regenerated tissue compared to those of the control lesions (P<0.05). The implants were gradually absorbed and substituted by the new tendon. Implantation of the bioimplants had a significant role in initiating tendon healing and the implants were biocompatible, biodegradable and safe for application in tendon reconstructive surgery. The results of the present study may be valuable in clinical practice.
    PLoS ONE 09/2013; 8(9):e73016. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0073016 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Local and regional gene therapy has improved healing in preclinical trials of articular and other muculoskeletal conditions. Combinations of cell supplementation and cells overexpressing growth factor genes have shown promising results for improving cartilage repair, enhancing delayed union of fractures, and driving organized tendon repair. Proof of concept has been developed using viral vectors, predominantly adenovirus, to deliver growth factor genes, such as BMP-2, TGF-beta1, and IGF-I. Integrating vectors, such as retrovirus and lentivirus, have improved the duration of gene-induced repair, however, increased risk factors have limited broad application. Cartilage repair can be improved using chondrocyte or stem cell transplantation with cells expressing IGF-I, BMP-2, or FGF-2. In cartilage injury and secondary osteoarthritis models, a combination of IL-1 knockdown and growth factor supplementation has restored cartilage matrix and stabilized the osteoarthritic process. Ultimately, nonviral vectors may provide similar control of catabolic activity in cartilage and synovial structures, which may further improve outcome after chondrocyte or mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) implantation. MSCs derived from bone marrow, fat, or other connective tissues provide a multipotent cell source that may be privileged vectors for skeletal gene therapy. MSCs expressing BMP-2, TGF-beta1, LMP-1, IGF-I, or GDF-5 have enhanced cartilage, bone, and tendon repair. Overall, the field of orthopedic gene therapy for enhanced tissue repair has made significant preclinical advances. Combining existing cell transplant technology to deliver differentiated cells in a minimally invasive way, with genes that improve matrix formation, provides a manageable protocol for a persisting anabolic impact.
    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 12/2007; 1117(1):310-27. DOI:10.1196/annals.1402.065 · 4.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions 06/2011; 11(2):84-5. · 1.74 Impact Factor
Show more