Elsevier

Biomaterials

Volume 98, August 2016, Pages 1-22
Biomaterials

Review
Cell-based tissue engineering strategies used in the clinical repair of articular cartilage

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.04.018Get rights and content

Abstract

One of the most important issues facing cartilage tissue engineering is the inability to move technologies into the clinic. Despite the multitude of current research in the field, it is known that 90% of new drugs that advance past animal studies fail clinical trials. The objective of this review is to provide readers with an understanding of the scientific details of tissue engineered cartilage products that have demonstrated a certain level of efficacy in humans, so that newer technologies may be developed upon this foundation. Compared to existing treatments, such as microfracture or autologous chondrocyte implantation, a tissue engineered product can potentially provide more consistent clinical results in forming hyaline repair tissue and in filling the entirety of the defect. The various tissue engineering strategies (e.g., cell expansion, scaffold material, media formulations, biomimetic stimuli, etc.) used in forming these products, as collected from published literature, company websites, and relevant patents, are critically discussed. The authors note that many details about these products remain proprietary, not all information is made public, and that advancements to the products are continuously made. Nevertheless, by understanding the design and production processes of these emerging technologies, one can gain tremendous insight into how to best use them and also how to design the next generation of tissue engineered cartilage products.

Introduction

An adequate therapy for the long-term repair of cartilage lesions has yet to be developed. Being largely avascular and with low cellularity, articular cartilage has a limited ability to heal itself. Despite possessing remarkable mechanical properties, the tissue can develop defects following long-term wear or acute trauma. Defects in the highly organized matrix can progressively deteriorate through mechanisms of stress concentration and cell signaling cascades. Ultimately, the tissue loses mechanical integrity, breaks, thins, loses lubrication, and no longer functions in cushioning bone-to-bone contact – imparting great physical pain to the patient.

Focal lesions are the ideal indication for the repair of articular cartilage. The prevalence of focal lesions is difficult to estimate. In 2005, an estimated 27 million people in the U.S. had osteoarthritis [2]. In one study, 60% of all arthroscopies revealed the presence of articular lesions (36% being Outerbridge Grade III and IV lesions) and, of these, 67% were characterized as focal lesions [3]. From a surgical perspective, an estimated 250,000 articular cartilage repair procedures (involving chondroplasty, microfracture, mosaicplasty, and autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI)) are performed annually in the U.S [4]. These cartilage repair therapies, however, do not consistently produce hyaline repair tissue, fill the entirety of the defect, and integrate repair tissue with adjacent native tissue.

To overcome these limitations, a number of cell-based, tissue engineered cartilage products have recently entered clinical trials in the U.S. and abroad. In this review, tissue engineered cartilage is defined as a construct formed by following the paradigm of integrating chondrocytes, signals, and scaffolds. The scaffolds can be exogenously provided or endogenously produced by the cells; the latter are usually referred to as scaffold-free or scaffold-less approaches if no exogenous scaffold is provided. Acellular scaffolds, considered an augmented form of microfracture, are not included in this definition. Tissue grafts including osteochondral autografts and allografts, as well as their particulated forms such as DeNovo® NT from Zimmer, are also not considered tissue engineered cartilage. Finally, using this definition, injection of passaged chondrocytes into a cartilage defect is also not considered tissue engineering. Through systematic design, tissue engineered cartilage can be manipulated in vitro to enhance its biochemical and biomechanical properties. Complete fill and good integration can be achieved by manipulating construct shape, the use of adhesives and other fixation methods, and other strategies. Tissue engineering offers a promising solution for the long-term treatment of cartilage lesions. Despite a plethora of research published on cartilage tissue engineering, it is known that 90% of new drugs that advance past animal studies fail clinical trials [1]. Therefore, reviewing the scientific details of tissue engineered cartilage products that have demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials would provide both foundational knowledge and insight in how to move the field forward.

The first section of this review aims to provide a description of current repair therapies and the tissue engineered cartilage products – BioCart™II, Bioseed®-C, CaReS®, Cartipatch®, Chondrosphere®, Hyalograft® C, INSTRUCT, NeoCart®, NOVOCART® 3D, MACI, and RevaFlex™. Table 1 lists the construct specifications, and Table 2 lists the products' clinical indications, current status, and clinical trials. The second section aims to discuss the tissue engineering strategies used in product fabrication, identify current challenges, and suggest future directions. The authors note that the information in this review was gathered from published literature, company websites, and relevant patents. Owing to this and the fact that there may be a plethora of proprietary details not publicly available, the current status of the products may not be adequately reflected. In reviewing the details on the science behind each product, one quickly realizes that improvements can be made on five areas. These include 1) defining and optimizing the chondrocyte cell source, 2) understanding tissue-scaffold interaction and scaffold degradation, 3) identifying and applying novel stimuli, 4) understanding construct maturation, biomechanics, and functionality, and 5) improving implantation, fixation, and rehabilitation methods. The current challenges and future directions in these five areas, along with challenges in commercialization, are discussed in Perspectives. By understanding the general details of how these clinically used tissue engineered products are fabricated, one can gain insight as to how to best use them and how to design the next generation of tissue engineered cartilage.

Section snippets

Current cartilage repair therapies

Chondroplasty (76.6%) and microfracture (22.0%) account for the majority of the procedures performed on articular cartilage in the knee [4], [5]. However, these cartilage repair options may have several shortcomings [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Chondroplasty, used only when wear is minor, has acceptable short-term but potentially poor long-term results [6], [7]. In microfracture, the defect is cleaned and the bone punctured to induce bleeding, resulting in a fibrocartilaginous repair tissue

BioCart™II (Histogenics, Waltham, MA)

Biocart™II was first developed by Prochon Biotech, Ltd. until the company's acquisition by Histogenics in 2011. The product is a fibrinogen/hyaluronic acid scaffold seeded with expanded autologous chondrocytes. Cells were expanded in the presence of autologous serum and 10 ng/mL fibroblast growth factor 2 variant (FGF2v) [26]. FGF2v has been shown to increase cell proliferation rates and maintain the chondrocytic phenotype during expansion [27]. The scaffold was described to be composed of

Tissue engineering strategies used in current clinical products

This section of the review compares the different tissue engineering strategies used during each stage of the tissue engineering paradigm. The paradigm consists of 1) identifying a cell source (i.e., primary or passaged articular chondrocytes), 2) forming the construct either using scaffold or scaffold-free approaches, and 3) culturing the construct in vitro, where biomimetic stimuli can be further applied, before implantation (Fig. 1). Construct maturation, implantation, fixation, and

Perspectives

The recent wave of cell-based articular cartilage products in clinical trials in the U.S. and abroad indicates a growing recognition that current repair techniques can be improved by using a tissue engineering approach. Through a detailed account of how these products are fabricated, one can gain insight to the key strategies, current challenges, and future directions in five areas: 1) defining and optimizing the chondrocyte cell source, 2) understanding tissue-scaffold interaction and scaffold

Disclaimer

Kyriacos A. Athanasiou is on the scientific advisory board for Histogenics Corporation (2011-present). He was on the scientific advisory board for Prochon Biotech Ltd. (2009–2011). He has served as a consultant for multiple companies including DePuy and Arthrex. In 1993, he was a co-founder of Osteobiologics Inc., which was acquired by Smith and Nephew in 2006.

Conflict of interest

The authors confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge support from the following grants: the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant R01AR067821 and California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) grant TR3-05709.

References (270)

  • D. Girotto et al.

    Tissue-specific gene expression in chondrocytes grown on three-dimensional hyaluronic acid scaffolds

    Biomaterials

    (2003)
  • R. Santoro et al.

    Bioreactor based engineering of large-scale human cartilage grafts for joint resurfacing

    Biomaterials

    (2010)
  • C. Albrecht et al.

    Gene expression and cell differentiation in matrix-associated chondrocyte transplantation grafts: a comparative study

    Osteoarthr. Cartil. OARS Osteoarthr. Res. Soc.

    (2011)
  • S.P. Abelow et al.

    Arthroscopic technique for matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation for the treatment of large chondral defects in the knee and ankle

    Oper. Tech. Orthop.

    (2006)
  • H. Clar et al.

    Matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte implantation into a 14cm(2) cartilage defect, caused by steroid-induced osteonecrosis

    Knee

    (2010)
  • M. Hay et al.

    Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs

    Nat. Biotechnol.

    (2014)
  • R.C. Lawrence et al.

    Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States

    Part II. Arthritis Rheum.

    (2008)
  • S.R. Montgomery et al.

    Trends in the surgical treatment of articular cartilage defects of the knee in the United States

    Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. Off. J. ESSKA

    (2014)
  • M.J. Hubbard

    Articular debridement versus washout for degeneration of the medial femoral condyle. A five-year study

    J. bone Jt. Surg. Br. Vol.

    (1996)
  • R.K. Aaron et al.

    Arthroscopic debridement for osteoarthritis of the knee

    J. bone Jt. Surg. Am. Vol.

    (2006)
  • A. Gobbi et al.

    Long-term results after microfracture treatment for full-thickness knee chondral lesions in athletes

    Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. Off. J. ESSKA

    (2014)
  • K. Mithoefer et al.

    Clinical efficacy of the microfracture technique for articular cartilage repair in the knee: an evidence-based systematic analysis

    Am. J. Sports Med.

    (2009)
  • L. Peterson et al.

    Autologous chondrocyte transplantation. Biomechanics and long-term durability

    Am. J. Sports Med.

    (2002)
  • P. Orth et al.

    Alterations of the subchondral bone in osteochondral repair–translational data and clinical evidence

    Eur. Cells Mater.

    (2013)
  • A.J. Krych et al.

    Activity levels are higher after osteochondral autograft transfer mosaicplasty than after microfracture for articular cartilage defects of the knee: a retrospective comparative study

    J. bone Jt. Surg. Am. Vol.

    (2012)
  • G. Bentley et al.

    Minimum ten-year results of a prospective randomised study of autologous chondrocyte implantation versus mosaicplasty for symptomatic articular cartilage lesions of the knee

    J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br.

    (2012)
  • A.E. Gross et al.

    Fresh osteochondral allografts for posttraumatic knee defects: long-term followup

    Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.

    (2008)
  • M. Demange et al.

    The use of osteochondral allografts in the management of cartilage defects

    Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med.

    (2012)
  • D.B. Saris et al.

    Treatment of symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee: characterized chondrocyte implantation results in better clinical outcome at 36 months in a randomized trial compared to microfracture

    Am. J. Sports Med.

    (2009)
  • R.A. Somoza et al.

    Chondrogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells: challenges and unfulfilled expectations

    Tissue Eng. Part B Rev.

    (2014)
  • T. Minas et al.

    The John Insall Award: a minimum 10-year outcome study of autologous chondrocyte implantation

    Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.

    (2014)
  • W. Bartlett et al.

    Autologous chondrocyte implantation versus matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondral defects of the knee: a prospective, randomised study

    J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br.

    (2005)
  • A. Shekkeris et al.

    Histological results of 406 BIOPSIES following ACI/MACI procedures for osteochondral defects in the knee

    J. Bone Jt. Surg.

    (2012)
  • S. Nehrer et al.

    Results of chondrocyte implantation with a fibrin-hyaluronan matrix: a preliminary study

    Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.

    (2008)
  • A. Yayon et al.

    Biocart™II A novel implant for 3D reconstruction of articular cartilage

    J. Bone Jt. Surg.

    (2006)
  • Yayon A, Azachi M, Gladnikoff M, Inventors; Prochon Biotech Ltd, assignee. Freeze-dried fibrin matrices and methods for...
  • P.C. Kreuz et al.

    Repair of focal cartilage defects with scaffold-assisted autologous chondrocyte grafts: clinical and biomechanical results 48 months after transplantation

    Am. J. Sports Med.

    (2011)
  • Bioseed-c for Articular Cartilage Regeneration [Brochure]. In: GmbH BT, editor. Freiburg,...
  • PRODUCTS: BIOSEED®-C - INTRODUCTION [11/16/2015]. Available from:...
  • BIOSEED®-C - INTRODUCTION [11/16/2015]. Available from:...
  • C. Ossendorf et al.

    Treatment of posttraumatic and focal osteoarthritic cartilage defects of the knee with autologous polymer-based three-dimensional chondrocyte grafts: 2-year clinical results

    Arthritis Res. Ther.

    (2007)
  • F. Zeifang et al.

    Autologous chondrocyte implantation using the original periosteum-cover technique versus matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation: a randomized clinical trial

    Am. J. Sports Med.

    (2010)
  • P. Niemeyer et al.

    Characteristic complications after autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects of the knee joint

    Am. J. Sports Med.

    (2008)
  • T.A. Selmi et al.

    Autologous chondrocyte implantation in a novel alginate-agarose hydrogel: outcome at two years

    J. bone Jt. Surg. Br. Vol.

    (2008)
  • Comparison of Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Versus Mosaicoplasty: a Randomized Trial (Cartipatch) [11/16/2015]....
  • L. Barnouin et al.

    23rd annual meeting of the European tissue repair society: histological outcomes of CARTIPATCH® phase III clinical trial: autologous chondrocytes implantation versus mosaicplasty for cartilage repair

    Wound Repair Regen.

    (2013)
  • Comparison of Microfracture Treatment and CARTIPATCH® Chondrocyte Graft Treatment in Femoral Condyle Lesions...
  • Frequently Asked Questions for Investors [11/16/2015]. Available from:...
  • Libera J, Anderer U, Fritsch K-G, Josimovic-Alasevic O, Inventors; Codon Aktiengesllschaft, assignee. Method for...
  • Libera JB, DE), Anderer, Ursula (Berlin, DE), Fritsch, Karl-gerd (Berlin, DE), Josimovic-alasevic, Olivera (Berlin,...
  • Cited by (316)

    • Designed peptide amphiphiles as scaffolds for tissue engineering

      2023, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text