Improved Posterolateral Lumbar Spinal Fusion Using a Biomimetic, Nanocomposite Scaffold Augmented by Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma


doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.622099.


eCollection 2021.

Affiliations

Item in Clipboard

Jeffrey L Van Eps et al.


Front Bioeng Biotechnol.


.

Abstract

Remodeling of the human bony skeleton is constantly occurring with up to 10% annual bone volume turnover from osteoclastic and osteoblastic activity. A shift toward resorption can result in osteoporosis and pathologic fractures, while a shift toward deposition is required after traumatic, or surgical injury. Spinal fusion represents one such state, requiring a substantial regenerative response to immobilize adjacent vertebrae through bony union. Autologous bone grafts were used extensively prior to the advent of advanced therapeutics incorporating exogenous growth factors and biomaterials. Besides cost constraints, these applications have demonstrated patient safety concerns. This study evaluated the regenerative ability of a nanostructured, magnesium-doped, hydroxyapatite/type I collagen scaffold (MHA/Coll) augmented by autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in an orthotopic model of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. After bilateral decortication, rabbits received either the scaffold alone (Group 1) or scaffold with PRP (Group 2) to the anatomic right side. Bone regeneration and fusion success compared to internal control were assessed by DynaCT with 3-D reconstruction at 2, 4, and 6 weeks postoperatively followed by comparative osteogenic gene expression and representative histopathology. Both groups formed significantly more new bone volume than control, and Group 2 subjects produced significantly more trabecular and cortical bone than Group 1 subjects. Successful fusion was seen in one Group 1 animal (12.5%) and 6/8 Group 2 animals (75%). This enhanced effect by autologous PRP treatment appears to occur via astounding upregulation of key osteogenic genes. Both groups demonstrated significant gene upregulation compared to vertebral bone controls for all genes. Group 1 averaged 2.21-fold upregulation of RUNX2 gene, 3.20-fold upregulation of SPARC gene, and 3.67-fold upregulation of SPP1 gene. Depending on anatomical subgroup (cranial, mid, caudal scaffold portions), Group 2 had significantly higher average expression of all genes than both control and Group 1-RUNX2 (8.23-19.74 fold), SPARC (18.67-55.44 fold), and SPP1 (46.09-90.65 fold). Our data collectively demonstrate the osteoinductive nature of a nanostructured MHA/Coll scaffold, a beneficial effect of augmentation with autologous PRP, and an ability to achieve clinical fusion when applied together in an orthotopic model. This has implications both for future study and biomedical innovation of bone-forming therapeutics.


Keywords:

biomaterials; biomimicry; bone regeneration; nanomaterials; platelet-rich plasma; scaffold; spinal fusion; tissue engineering.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures


FIGURE 1



FIGURE 1

Study design.


FIGURE 2



FIGURE 2

Operative technique of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. Dissection through the skin and intermuscular planes (A) exposes adjacent lumbar vertebral bodies and transverse processes (B) which are prepared by decortication (C, D) for fusion using a customized 3 cm nanocomposite MHA/Coll scaffold (E) either alone (F) or soaked in autologous PRP (G). The tissues are closed with absorbable suture and skin glue (H, I) and harvested at 6 weeks postoperatively (J, K).


FIGURE 3



FIGURE 3

Material Characterization. SEM was used to characterize surface topography, pore size, and uniformity of our MHA/Coll scaffold alone (A–C), MHA/Coll + PRP (E–G), and MHA/Coll + PRP + CaCl2 (I–K). Confocal microscopy was used in a DAPI channel to characterize collagen fibril autofluorescence including on MHA/Coll scaffolds alone (D), and distribution of labeled PRP alone (H) or after CaCl2 activation (L). FTIR analysis was used to assess differences in spectra from MHA/Coll scaffolds alone or with the addition of PRP (M). Changes in compression/stretch were also characterized (N).


FIGURE 4



FIGURE 4

Evaluation of fusion by DynaCT with 3D reconstruction. Representative 3D reconstructions of spinal DynaCT are shown at 2, 4, and 6 weeks for Group 1 nanocomposite scaffold alone (A–C) and Group 2 PRP-treated (D–F). Areas of increased bone growth and fusion were seen at 6 weeks most prominently in Group 2 specimens (arrowheads).


FIGURE 5



FIGURE 5

Volumetric quantification of osteogenesis. Areas of bridging bone and fusion (arrowheads) were clearly appreciated on axial, coronal, and sagittal CT views where identically sized ROI’s were selected (A) on the experimental right and control left sides for volumetric new bone quantification. Newly formed trabecular (200HU) and cortical (500HU) bone was quantified and compared between the two experimental groups over time (B), *p < 0.05.


FIGURE 6



FIGURE 6

Molecular analysis of osteogenesis. Group 1 specimens were compared with separate cranial, mid, and caudal regions of Group 2 specimens for expression of osteogenic genes: RUNX2 (A), SPARC (B), and SPP1 (C).


FIGURE 7



FIGURE 7

Histology. Representative specimens were evaluated for cellularity and mineralized tissue using three different stains. Cellularization of the remodelled scaffold with osteoblasts/clasts was signalled by pronounced hematoxylin staining of the treated scaffold on H and E stain to variable degrees according to treatment group (A, D, G). Mineralized osteoid within the scaffold showed itself as “peppering” similar to native bone on Von Kossa-MacNeal’s Tetrachrome stain (B, E, H) and similar jade green appearance to native bone on Goldner’s Trichrome stain (C, F, I). Group 1 (A–C) displayed significant osteoblast recruitment and mineralized osteoid production, but not as much as PRP-treated Group 2 (D–F). A native control vertebral body-transverse process junction is shown (G–I) for reference.

Similar articles

References

    1. Aghdasi B., Montgomery S. R., Daubs M. D., Wang J. C. (2013). A Review of Demineralized Bone Matrices for Spinal Fusion: the Evidence for Efficacy. The Surgeon 11, 39–48. 10.1016/j.surge.2012.08.001



      DOI



      PubMed

    1. Ahmed T. A. E., Dare E. V., Hincke M. (2008). Fibrin: a Versatile Scaffold for Tissue Engineering Applications. Tissue Eng. B: Rev. 14, 199–215. 10.1089/ten.teb.2007.0435



      DOI



      PubMed

    1. Albanese A., Licata M. E., Polizzi B., Campisi G. (2013). Platelet-rich Plasma (PRP) in Dental and Oral Surgery: from the Wound Healing to Bone Regeneration. Immun. Ageing 10, 23. 10.1186/1742-4933-10-23



      DOI



      PMC



      PubMed

    1. Alberio L., Safa O., Clemetson K. J., Esmon C. T., Dale G. L. (2000). Surface Expression and Functional Characterization of α-granule Factor V in Human Platelets: Effects of Ionophore A23187, Thrombin, Collagen, and Convulxin. Blood 95, 1694–1702. 10.1182/blood.v95.5.1694.005k24_1694_1702



      DOI



      PubMed

    1. Alsousou J., Thompson M., Hulley P., Noble A., Willett K. (2009). The Biology of Platelet-Rich Plasma and its Application in Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery. The J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. volumeBritish volume 91-B, 987–996. 10.1302/0301-620x.91b8.22546



      DOI



      PubMed

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on vk
VK
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Close Menu