Exogenous MC3T3 Preosteoblasts Migrate Systemically and Mitigate the Adverse Effects of Wear Particles

Fritton, Kate; Ren, Pei‐Gen; Gibon, Emmanuel; Rao, Allison J.; Ma, Ting; Biswal, Sandip; Gambhir, Sanjiv S.; Goodman, Stuart B.

doi:10.1089/ten.tea.2012.0086

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The osteoblast phenotype around implant may change so that it supports the osteoclast differentiation and inhibits bone formation [97]. This would further contribute to a local predominance of bone resorption over formation in periprosthetic bone [98]. …”

Section: Biological Theories Of Periprosthetic Osteolysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: A review of pathogenetic mechanisms

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aseptic loosening and other wear-related complications are one of the most frequent late reasons for revision of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Periprosthetic osteolysis (PPOL) predates aseptic loosening in many cases indicating the clinical significance of this pathogenic mechanism. A variety of implant-, surgery-, and host-related factors have been delineated to explain the development of PPOL. These factors influence the development of PPOL due to changes in mechanical stresses within the vicinity of the prosthetic device, excessive wear of the polyethylene liner, and joint fluid pressure and flow acting on the peri-implant bone. The process of aseptic loosening is initially governed by factors such as implant/limb alignment, device fixation quality, and muscle coordination/strength. Later large numbers of wear particles detached from TKAs trigger and perpetuate particle disease, as highlighted by progressive growth of inflammatory/granulomatous tissue around the joint cavity. An increased accumulation of osteoclasts at the bone-implant interface, an impairment of osteoblast function, mechanical stresses, and an increased production of joint fluid contribute to bone resorption and subsequent loosening of the implant. In addition, hypersensitivity and adverse reactions to metal debris may contribute to aseptic TKA failure but should be determined more precisely. Patient activity level appears to be the most important factor when the long-term development of PPOL is considered. Surgical technique, implant design, and material factors are the most important preventative factors because they influence both the generation of wear debris and excessive mechanical stresses. New generations of bearing surfaces and designs for TKA should carefully address these important issues in extensive preclinical studies. Currently, there is little evidence that PPOL can be prevented with pharmacological interventions.

show abstract

Section: Biological Theories Of Periprosthetic Osteolysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: A review of pathogenetic mechanisms

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to particle‐induced bone destruction, homeostatic mechanisms attempt to effect repair of bone in the periprosthetic tissues. Genetically altered reporter osteoprogenitor cells, introduced through a left ventricular puncture, were also shown to migrate systemically to the femoral canal into which UHMWPE particles were continuously infused . Thus, it would appear that signaling mechanisms for both bone resorption and bone formation are initiated by wear particle‐induced inflammation.…”

Section: Recent Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macrophages—Key cells in the response to wear debris from joint replacements

Nich

Takakubo

Pajarinen³

et al. 2013

J Biomedical Materials Res

Self Cite

220

218

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The generation of wear debris is an inevitable result of normal usage of joint replacements. Wear debris particles stimulate local and systemic biological reactions resulting in chronic inflammation, periprosthetic bone destruction, and eventually, implant loosening and revision surgery. The latter may be indicated in up to 15% patients in the decade following the arthroplasty using conventional polyethylene. Macrophages play multiple roles in both inflammation and in maintaining tissue homeostasis. As sentinels of the innate immune system, they are central to the initiation of this inflammatory cascade, characterized by the release of pro-inflammatory and proosteoclastic factors. Similar to the response to pathogens, wear particles elicit a macrophage response, based on the unique properties of the cells belonging to this lineage, including sensing, chemotaxis, phagocytosis, and adaptive stimulation. The biological processes involved are complex, redundant, both local and systemic, and highly adaptive. Cells of the monocyte/ macrophage lineage are implicated in this phenomenon, ultimately resulting in differentiation and activation of bone resorbing osteoclasts. Simultaneously, other distinct macrophage populations inhibit inflammation and protect the bone-implant interface from osteolysis. Here, the current knowledge about the physiology of monocyte/macrophage lineage cells is reviewed. In addition, the pattern and consequences of their interaction with wear debris and the recent developments in this field are presented.

show abstract

“…Interference with the systemic trafficking of monocyte/macrophages (that may become foreign body giant cells and bone resorbing osteoclasts) may be one strategy to mitigate the chronic inflammatory reaction to implants [63]. This work has stimulated considerations to coat orthopaepdic implants with bioactive molecules to mitigate the systemic foreign body reaction, specific cytokines/chemokines, or even stimulate migrating osteoprogenitor cells to migrate to the implant site [64]. …”

Section: Coatings To Enhance Osseointegrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of biologic coatings for orthopaedic implants

Goodman¹,

Yao²,

Keeney³

et al. 2013

Biomaterials

Self Cite

707

507

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implants are widely used for othopaedic applications such as fixing fractures, repairing nonunions, obtaining a joint arthrodesis, total joint arthroplasty, spinal reconstruction, and soft tissue anchorage. Previously, orthopaedic implants were designed simply as mechanical devices; the biological aspects of the implant were a byproduct of stable internal/external fixation of the device to the surrounding bone or soft tissue. More recently, biologic coatings have been incorporated into orthopaedic implants in order to modulate the surrounding biological environment. This opinion article reviews current and potential future use of biologic coatings for orthopaedic implants to facilitate osseointegration and mitigate possible adverse tissue responses including the foreign body reaction and implant infection. While many of these coatings are still in the preclinical testing stage, bioengineers, material scientists and surgeons continue to explore surface coatings as a means of improving clinical outcome of patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery.

show abstract

Exogenous MC3T3 Preosteoblasts Migrate Systemically and Mitigate the Adverse Effects of Wear Particles

Cited by 16 publications

References 41 publications

Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: A review of pathogenetic mechanisms

Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: A review of pathogenetic mechanisms

Macrophages—Key cells in the response to wear debris from joint replacements

The future of biologic coatings for orthopaedic implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About