Email this article TWO TYPES OF THE COLLAGEN MEMBRANES FOR THE PLASTIC RESTORATION OF ARTICULAR CARTILAGE DEFECTS IN THE EXPERIMENT
- Authors: Afanasyevskaya E.V.1, Medvedeva E.V.1, Gazimieva B.M.1, Kurenkova A.D.1, Kytko O.V.1, Panyushkin P.V.1, Istranov L.P.1, Istranova E.V.1, Shekhter A.B.1, Lichagin A.V.1, Chagin A.S.1, Telpukhov V.I.1
-
Affiliations:
- Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
- Issue: Vol 153, No S3-1 (2018)
- Pages: 13-13
- Section: Articles
- Submitted: 27.02.2022
- Published: 15.12.2018
- URL: https://j-morphology.com/1026-3543/article/view/103048
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/morph.103048
- ID: 103048
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
Keywords
Full Text
Background. Articular cartilage injuries are common in the field of orthopedics. Cartilage has a poor regenerative capacity. Accordingly, trauma-associated cartilage defects are often treated surgically by covering with synthetic collagen membranes. Aim. To compare the regenerative capacities of two types of synthetic collagen membranes utilized in a rat model of full thickness defect. Material and Methods. Full thickness cartilage defects were made surgically in patellofemoral grove and covered with one of the two collagen membranes: Chondro-Gide® (Switzerland) or Chondrotek (Russia). Control group was left without coverage. The International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) score and histological analysis were carried out in 2 and 4 months after implantation. Results and Discussion. Both collagen membranes have a positive effect on cartilage repair since the thickness of newly formed tissue was significantly higher than in control group. Formation of fibrocartilage was observed in all groups. No significant difference was observed between two membranes repair capacity. Conclusions. Both collagen membranes have comparable repair capacity and both failed to facilitate formation of hyaline cartilage.About the authors
E. V. Afanasyevskaya
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Email: el.afanasyevskaya@gmail.com
Institute for Regenerative Medicine Moscow, Russia
E. V. Medvedeva
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityInstitute for Regenerative Medicine Moscow, Russia
B. M. Gazimieva
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityInstitute for Regenerative Medicine Moscow, Russia
A. D. Kurenkova
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityInstitute for Regenerative Medicine Moscow, Russia
O. V. Kytko
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityDepartment of Operative Surgery and Surgical Anatomy Moscow, Russia
P. V. Panyushkin
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityDepartment of Operative Surgery and Surgical Anatomy Moscow, Russia
L. P. Istranov
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityInstitute for Regenerative Medicine Moscow, Russia
E. V. Istranova
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityInstitute for Regenerative Medicine Moscow, Russia
A. B. Shekhter
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityInstitute for Regenerative Medicine Moscow, Russia
A. V. Lichagin
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityDepartment of Trauma, Orthopedics and Disaster Surgery Moscow, Russia
A. S. Chagin
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityInstitute for Regenerative Medicine Moscow, Russia
V. I. Telpukhov
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityInstitute for Regenerative Medicine; Department of Operative Surgery and Surgical Anatomy Moscow, Russia
References
Supplementary files
Периодический печатный журнал зарегистрирован как СМИ Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор): №