↓ Skip to main content

Effects of press-fit biphasic (collagen and HA/βTCP) scaffold with cell-based therapy on cartilage and subchondral bone repair knee defect in rabbits

Overview of attention for article published in International Orthopaedics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
Effects of press-fit biphasic (collagen and HA/βTCP) scaffold with cell-based therapy on cartilage and subchondral bone repair knee defect in rabbits
Published in
International Orthopaedics, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00264-018-3999-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacques Hernigou, Pascale Vertongen, Esfandiar Chahidi, Theofylaktos Kyriakidis, Jean-Paul Dehoux, Magalie Crutzen, Sébastien Boutry, Lionel Larbanoix, Sarah Houben, Nathalie Gaspard, Dimitrios Koulalis, Joanne Rasschaert

Abstract

Human spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee (SPONK) is still challenging as the current treatments do not allow the production of hyaline cartilage tissue. The aim of the present study was to explore the therapeutic potential of cartilage regeneration using a new biphasic scaffold (type I collagen/hydroxyapatite) previously loaded or not with concentrated bone marrow cells. Female rabbits were operated of one knee to create articular lesions of the trochlea (three holes of 4 × 4mm). The holes were left empty in the control group or were filled with the scaffold alone or the scaffold previously loaded with concentrated bone marrow cells. After two months, rabbits were sacrificed and the structure of the newly formed tissues were evaluated by macroscopic, MRI, and immunohistochemistry analyses. Macroscopic and MRI evaluation of the knees did not show differences between the three groups (p > 0.05). However, histological analysis demonstrated that a higher O'Driscoll score was obtained in the two groups treated with the scaffold, as compared to the control group (p < 0.05). The number of cells in treated area was higher in scaffold groups compared to the control group (p < 0.05). There was no difference for intensity of collagen type II between the groups (p > 0.05) but subchondral bone repair was significantly thicker in scaffold-treated groups than in the control group (1 mm for the control group vs 2.1 and 2.6 mm for scaffold groups). Furthermore, we observed that scaffolds previously loaded with concentrated bone marrow were more reabsorbed (p < 0.05). The use of a biphasic scaffold previously loaded with concentrated bone marrow significantly improves cartilage lesion healing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 33%
Student > Postgraduate 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Researcher 1 17%
Student > Bachelor 1 17%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 33%
Engineering 1 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#10,447,155
of 13,104,802 outputs
Outputs from International Orthopaedics
#660
of 898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,581
of 268,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Orthopaedics
#9
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,104,802 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 898 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.