The Development of a Xenograft-Derived Scaffold for Tendon and Ligament Reconstruction Using a Decellularization and Oxidation Protocol.

PURPOSE To evaluate the biological, immunological, and biomechanical properties of a scaffold derived by architectural modification of a fresh-frozen porcine patella tendon using a decellularization protocol that combines physical, chemical, and enzymatic modalities. METHODS Porcine patellar tendons were processed using a decellularization and oxidation protocol that combines physical, chemical, and enzymatic modalities. Scaffolds (n = 88) were compared with native tendons (n = 70) using histologic, structural (scanning electron microscopy, porosimetry, and tensile testing), biochemical (mass spectrometry, peracetic acid reduction, DNA quantification, alpha-galactosidase [α-gal] content), as well as in vitro immunologic (cytocompatibility, cytokine induction) and in vivo immunologic nonhuman primate analyses. RESULTS A decrease in cellularity based on histology and a significant decrease in DNA content were observed in the scaffolds compared with the native tendon (P < .001). Porosity and pore size were increased significantly (P < .001). Scaffolds were cytocompatible in vitro. There was no difference between native tendons and scaffolds when comparing ultimate tensile load, stiffness, and elastic modulus. The α-gal xenoantigen level was significantly lower in the decellularized scaffold group compared with fresh-frozen, nondecellularized tissue (P < .001). The in vivo immunological response to implanted scaffolds measured by tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukin-6 levels was significantly (P < .001) reduced compared with untreated controls in vitro. These results were confirmed by an attenuated response to scaffolds in vivo after implantation in a nonhuman primate model. CONCLUSIONS Porcine tendon was processed via a method of decellularization and oxidation to produce a scaffold that possessed significantly less inflammatory potential than a native tendon, was biocompatible in vitro, of increased porosity, and with significantly reduced amounts of α-gal epitope while retaining tensile properties. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Porcine-derived scaffolds may provide a readily available source of material for musculoskeletal reconstruction and repair while eliminating concerns regarding disease transmission and the morbidity of autologous harvest.

[1]  C. Harner,et al.  The use of musculoskeletal allograft tissue in knee surgery. , 2003, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[2]  M. Hinsenkamp,et al.  Adverse reactions and events related to musculoskeletal allografts: reviewed by the World Health Organisation Project NOTIFY , 2012, International Orthopaedics.

[3]  Thomas L. Smith,et al.  A naturally derived, cytocompatible, and architecturally optimized scaffold for tendon and ligament regeneration. , 2007, Biomaterials.

[4]  S. Woo,et al.  Biomechanics of knee ligaments: injury, healing, and repair. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[5]  Hui Wang,et al.  Innate cellular immunity and xenotransplantation , 2012, Current opinion in organ transplantation.

[6]  Stephen F Badylak,et al.  Natural anti-galactose alpha1,3 galactose antibodies delay, but do not prevent the acceptance of extracellular matrix xenografts. , 2002, Transplant immunology.

[7]  M. Murray,et al.  TRITON‐X is most effective among three decellularization agents for ACL tissue engineering , 2009, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[8]  G. Ayala,et al.  Porcine cartilage transplants in the cynomolgus monkey. III. Transplantation of alpha-galactosidase-treated porcine cartilage. , 1998, Transplantation.

[9]  U. Galili,et al.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a porcine xenograft: a serologic, histologic, and biomechanical study in primates. , 2007, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[10]  S L Woo,et al.  A new method for determining cross-sectional shape and area of soft tissues. , 1988, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[11]  U. Galili,et al.  The α-Gal epitope (Galα1-3Galβ1-4GlcNAc-R) in xenotransplantation. , 2001, Biochimie.

[12]  R. Pierson,et al.  Current status of xenotransplantation and prospects for clinical application , 2009, Xenotransplantation.

[13]  Cato T Laurencin,et al.  Xenotransplantation in orthopaedic surgery. , 2008, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[14]  S. Robson,et al.  T‐cell‐mediated immunological barriers to xenotransplantation , 2012, Xenotransplantation.

[15]  U. Galili,et al.  Replacement of Human Anterior Cruciate Ligaments with Pig Ligaments: A Model for Anti-Non-Gal Antibody Response in Long-Term Xenotransplantation , 2007, Transplantation.

[16]  W. Klepetko,et al.  Alpha‐Gal on bioprostheses: xenograft immune response in cardiac surgery , 2005, European journal of clinical investigation.

[17]  W. Grana,et al.  An Analysis of Autograft Fixation After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in a Rabbit Model , 1994, The American journal of sports medicine.

[18]  P. Supronowicz,et al.  Immunologic analyses of bovine bone treated with a novel tissue sterilization process , 2008, Xenotransplantation.

[19]  E. Eyring,et al.  Proximal tibial 90-90 traction in treatment of children with femoral-shaft fractures. , 1969, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[20]  Thomas L. Smith,et al.  A novel process for optimizing musculoskeletal allograft tissue to improve safety, ultrastructural properties, and cell infiltration. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[21]  C. T. Vangsness,et al.  Current Safety Sterilization and Tissue Banking Issues for Soft Tissue Allografts , 2009, Clinics in Sports Medicine.

[22]  M. Sandrin,et al.  Galα(1,3)Gal, the Major Xenoantigen(s) Recognised in Pigs by Human Natural Antibodies , 1994, Immunological reviews.

[23]  V. Tisato,et al.  Xenotransplantation: an overview of the field. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[24]  C. Groth,et al.  Anti‐Gal activity In diabetic patients transplanted with fetal porcine Islet cell clusters , 1995, Transplantation.

[25]  U. Galili,et al.  Porcine and bovine cartilage transplants in cynomolgus monkey: II. Changes in anti-Gal response during chronic rejection. , 1997, Transplantation.

[26]  I. Lieberman,et al.  Musculoskeletal Allograft Risks and Recalls in the United States , 2008, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[27]  S L Woo,et al.  The mechanical properties of skeletally mature rabbit anterior cruciate ligament and patellar tendon over a range of strain rates , 1993, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[28]  S L Woo,et al.  A new methodology to determine the mechanical properties of ligaments at high strain rates. , 1986, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[29]  J. Fisher,et al.  Development and characterization of an acellular porcine medial meniscus for use in tissue engineering. , 2008, Tissue engineering. Part A.

[30]  M. Radic,et al.  A sensitive assay for measuring alpha-Gal epitope expression on cells by a monoclonal anti-Gal antibody. , 1998, Transplantation.