Percutaneous CO2 Treatment Accelerates Bone Generation During Distraction Osteogenesis in Rabbits.
Animals
Bone Density
/ physiology
Bone Morphogenetic Proteins
/ metabolism
Bone Regeneration
/ physiology
Carbon Dioxide
/ administration & dosage
Female
Hypoxia-Inducible Factor 1
/ metabolism
Interleukin-6
/ metabolism
Osteogenesis
/ physiology
Osteogenesis, Distraction
/ methods
Rabbits
Tibia
/ metabolism
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
/ metabolism
X-Ray Microtomography
Journal
Clinical orthopaedics and related research
ISSN: 1528-1132
Titre abrégé: Clin Orthop Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0075674
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
entrez:
1
8
2020
pubmed:
1
8
2020
medline:
12
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Distraction osteogenesis has been broadly used to treat various structural bone deformities and defects. However, prolonged healing time remains a major problem. Various approaches including the use of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound, parathyroid hormone, and bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) have been studied to shorten the treatment period with limited success. Our previous studies of rats have reported that the transcutaneous application of CO2 accelerates fracture repair and bone-defect healing in rats by promoting angiogenesis, blood flow, and endochondral ossification. This therapy may also accelerate bone generation during distraction osteogenesis, but, to our knowledge, no study investigating CO2 therapy on distraction osteogenesis has been reported. We aimed to investigate the effect of transcutaneous CO2 during distraction osteogenesis in rabbits, which are the most suitable animal as a distraction osteogenesis model for a lengthener in terms of limb size. We asked: Does transcutaneous CO2 during distraction osteogenesis alter (1) radiographic bone density in the distraction gap during healing; (2) callus parameters, including callus bone mineral content, volumetric bone mineral density, and bone volume fraction; (3) the newly formed bone area, cartilage area, and angiogenesis, as well as the expression of interleukin-6 (IL-6), BMP-2, BMP-7, hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) -1α, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF); and (4) three-point bend biomechanical strength, stiffness, and energy? Forty 24-week-old female New Zealand white rabbits were used according to a research protocol approved by our institutional ethical committee. A distraction osteogenesis rabbit tibia model was created as previously described. Briefly, an external lengthener was applied to the right tibia, and a transverse osteotomy was performed at the mid-shaft. The osteotomy stumps were connected by adjusting the fixator to make no gap. After a 7-day latency phase, distraction was continued at 1 mm per day for 10 days. Beginning the day after the osteotomy, a 20-minute transcutaneous application of CO2 on the operated leg using a CO2 absorption-enhancing hydrogel was performed five times per week in the CO2 group (n = 20). Sham treatment with air was administered in the control group (n = 20). Animals were euthanized immediately after the distraction period (n = 10), 2 weeks (n = 10), and 4 weeks (n = 20) after completion of distraction. We performed bone density quantification on the plain radiographs to evaluate consolidation in the distraction gap with image analyzing software. Callus parameters were measured with micro-CT to assess callus microstructure. The newly formed bone area and cartilage area were measured histologically with safranin O/fast green staining to assess the progress of ossification. We also performed immunohistochemical staining of endothelial cells with fluorescein-labeled isolectin B4 and examined capillary density to evaluate angiogenesis. Gene expressions in newly generated callus were analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Biomechanical strength, stiffness, and energy were determined from a three-point bend test to assess the mechanical strength of the callus. Radiographs showed higher pixel values in the distracted area in the CO2 group than the control group at Week 4 of the consolidation phase (0.98 ± 0.11 [95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.06] versus 1.19 ± 0.23 [95% CI 1.05 to 1.34]; p = 0.013). Micro-CT demonstrated that bone volume fraction in the CO2 group was higher than that in the control group at Week 4 (5.56 ± 3.21 % [95% CI 4.32 to 6.12 %] versus 11.90 ± 3.33 % [95% CI 9.63 to 14.25 %]; p = 0.035). There were no differences in any other parameters (that is, callus bone mineral content at Weeks 2 and 4; volumetric bone mineral density at Weeks 2 and 4; bone volume fraction at Week 2). At Week 2, rabbits in the CO2 group had a larger cartilage area compared with those in the control group (2.09 ± 1.34 mm [95% CI 1.26 to 2.92 mm] versus 5.10 ± 3.91 mm [95% CI 2.68 to 7.52 mm]; p = 0.011). More newly formed bone was observed in the CO2 group than the control group at Week 4 (68.31 ± 16.32 mm [95% CI 58.19 to 78.44 mm] versus 96.26 ± 19.37 mm [95% CI 84.25 to 108.26 mm]; p < 0.001). There were no differences in any other parameters (cartilage area at Weeks 0 and 4; newly formed bone area at Weeks 0 and 2). Immunohistochemical isolectin B4 staining showed greater capillary densities in rabbits in the CO2 group than the control group in the distraction area at Week 0 and surrounding tissue at Weeks 0 and 2 (distraction area at Week 0, 286.54 ± 61.55 /mm [95% CI 232.58 to 340.49] versus 410.24 ± 55.29 /mm [95% CI 361.78 to 458.71]; p < 0.001; surrounding tissue at Week 0 395.09 ± 68.16/mm [95% CI 335.34 to 454.83] versus 589.75 ± 174.42/mm [95% CI 436.86 to 742.64]; p = 0.003; at Week 2 271.22 ± 169.42 /mm [95% CI 122.71 to 419.73] versus 508.46 ± 49.06/mm [95% CI 465.45 to 551.47]; p < 0.001 respectively). There was no difference in the distraction area at Week 2. The expressions of BMP -2 at Week 2, HIF1-α at Week 2 and VEGF at Week 0 and 2 were greater in the CO2 group than in the control group (BMP -2 at Week 2 3.84 ± 0.83 fold [95% CI 3.11 to 4.58] versus 7.32 ± 1.63 fold [95% CI 5.88 to 8.75]; p < 0.001; HIF1-α at Week 2, 10.49 ± 2.93 fold [95% CI 7.91 to 13.06] versus 20.74 ± 11.01 fold [95% CI 11.09 to 30.40]; p < 0.001; VEGF at Week 0 4.80 ± 1.56 fold [95% CI 3.43 to 6.18] versus 11.36 ± 4.82 fold [95% CI 7.13 to 15.59]; p < 0.001; at Week 2 31.52 ± 8.26 fold [95% CI 24.27 to 38.76] versus 51.05 ± 15.52 fold [95% CI 37.44 to 64.66]; p = 0.034, respectively). There were no differences in any other parameters (BMP-2 at Week 0 and 4; BMP -7 at Weeks 0, 2 and 4; HIF-1α at Weeks 0 and 4; IL-6 at Weeks 0, 2 and 4; VEGF at Week 4). In the biomechanical assessment, ultimate stress and failure energy were greater in the CO2 group than in the control group at Week 4 (ultimate stress 259.96 ± 74.33 N [95% CI 167.66 to 352.25] versus 422.45 ± 99.32 N [95% CI 299.13 to 545.77]; p < 0.001, failure energy 311.32 ± 99.01 Nmm [95% CI 188.37 to 434.25] versus 954.97 ± 484.39 Nmm [95% CI 353.51 to 1556.42]; p = 0.003, respectively). There was no difference in stiffness (216.77 ± 143.39 N/mm [95% CI 38.73 to 394.81] versus 223.68 ± 122.17 N/mm [95% CI 71.99 to 375.37]; p = 0.92). Transcutaneous application of CO2 accelerated bone generation in a distraction osteogenesis model of rabbit tibias. As demonstrated in previous studies, CO2 treatment might affect bone regeneration in distraction osteogenesis by promoting angiogenesis, blood flow, and endochondral ossification. The use of the transcutaneous application of CO2 may open new possibilities for shortening healing time in patients with distraction osteogenesis. However, a deeper insight into the mechanism of CO2 in the local tissue is required before it can be used in future clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Distraction osteogenesis has been broadly used to treat various structural bone deformities and defects. However, prolonged healing time remains a major problem. Various approaches including the use of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound, parathyroid hormone, and bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) have been studied to shorten the treatment period with limited success. Our previous studies of rats have reported that the transcutaneous application of CO2 accelerates fracture repair and bone-defect healing in rats by promoting angiogenesis, blood flow, and endochondral ossification. This therapy may also accelerate bone generation during distraction osteogenesis, but, to our knowledge, no study investigating CO2 therapy on distraction osteogenesis has been reported.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
We aimed to investigate the effect of transcutaneous CO2 during distraction osteogenesis in rabbits, which are the most suitable animal as a distraction osteogenesis model for a lengthener in terms of limb size. We asked: Does transcutaneous CO2 during distraction osteogenesis alter (1) radiographic bone density in the distraction gap during healing; (2) callus parameters, including callus bone mineral content, volumetric bone mineral density, and bone volume fraction; (3) the newly formed bone area, cartilage area, and angiogenesis, as well as the expression of interleukin-6 (IL-6), BMP-2, BMP-7, hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) -1α, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF); and (4) three-point bend biomechanical strength, stiffness, and energy?
METHODS
Forty 24-week-old female New Zealand white rabbits were used according to a research protocol approved by our institutional ethical committee. A distraction osteogenesis rabbit tibia model was created as previously described. Briefly, an external lengthener was applied to the right tibia, and a transverse osteotomy was performed at the mid-shaft. The osteotomy stumps were connected by adjusting the fixator to make no gap. After a 7-day latency phase, distraction was continued at 1 mm per day for 10 days. Beginning the day after the osteotomy, a 20-minute transcutaneous application of CO2 on the operated leg using a CO2 absorption-enhancing hydrogel was performed five times per week in the CO2 group (n = 20). Sham treatment with air was administered in the control group (n = 20). Animals were euthanized immediately after the distraction period (n = 10), 2 weeks (n = 10), and 4 weeks (n = 20) after completion of distraction. We performed bone density quantification on the plain radiographs to evaluate consolidation in the distraction gap with image analyzing software. Callus parameters were measured with micro-CT to assess callus microstructure. The newly formed bone area and cartilage area were measured histologically with safranin O/fast green staining to assess the progress of ossification. We also performed immunohistochemical staining of endothelial cells with fluorescein-labeled isolectin B4 and examined capillary density to evaluate angiogenesis. Gene expressions in newly generated callus were analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Biomechanical strength, stiffness, and energy were determined from a three-point bend test to assess the mechanical strength of the callus.
RESULTS
Radiographs showed higher pixel values in the distracted area in the CO2 group than the control group at Week 4 of the consolidation phase (0.98 ± 0.11 [95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.06] versus 1.19 ± 0.23 [95% CI 1.05 to 1.34]; p = 0.013). Micro-CT demonstrated that bone volume fraction in the CO2 group was higher than that in the control group at Week 4 (5.56 ± 3.21 % [95% CI 4.32 to 6.12 %] versus 11.90 ± 3.33 % [95% CI 9.63 to 14.25 %]; p = 0.035). There were no differences in any other parameters (that is, callus bone mineral content at Weeks 2 and 4; volumetric bone mineral density at Weeks 2 and 4; bone volume fraction at Week 2). At Week 2, rabbits in the CO2 group had a larger cartilage area compared with those in the control group (2.09 ± 1.34 mm [95% CI 1.26 to 2.92 mm] versus 5.10 ± 3.91 mm [95% CI 2.68 to 7.52 mm]; p = 0.011). More newly formed bone was observed in the CO2 group than the control group at Week 4 (68.31 ± 16.32 mm [95% CI 58.19 to 78.44 mm] versus 96.26 ± 19.37 mm [95% CI 84.25 to 108.26 mm]; p < 0.001). There were no differences in any other parameters (cartilage area at Weeks 0 and 4; newly formed bone area at Weeks 0 and 2). Immunohistochemical isolectin B4 staining showed greater capillary densities in rabbits in the CO2 group than the control group in the distraction area at Week 0 and surrounding tissue at Weeks 0 and 2 (distraction area at Week 0, 286.54 ± 61.55 /mm [95% CI 232.58 to 340.49] versus 410.24 ± 55.29 /mm [95% CI 361.78 to 458.71]; p < 0.001; surrounding tissue at Week 0 395.09 ± 68.16/mm [95% CI 335.34 to 454.83] versus 589.75 ± 174.42/mm [95% CI 436.86 to 742.64]; p = 0.003; at Week 2 271.22 ± 169.42 /mm [95% CI 122.71 to 419.73] versus 508.46 ± 49.06/mm [95% CI 465.45 to 551.47]; p < 0.001 respectively). There was no difference in the distraction area at Week 2. The expressions of BMP -2 at Week 2, HIF1-α at Week 2 and VEGF at Week 0 and 2 were greater in the CO2 group than in the control group (BMP -2 at Week 2 3.84 ± 0.83 fold [95% CI 3.11 to 4.58] versus 7.32 ± 1.63 fold [95% CI 5.88 to 8.75]; p < 0.001; HIF1-α at Week 2, 10.49 ± 2.93 fold [95% CI 7.91 to 13.06] versus 20.74 ± 11.01 fold [95% CI 11.09 to 30.40]; p < 0.001; VEGF at Week 0 4.80 ± 1.56 fold [95% CI 3.43 to 6.18] versus 11.36 ± 4.82 fold [95% CI 7.13 to 15.59]; p < 0.001; at Week 2 31.52 ± 8.26 fold [95% CI 24.27 to 38.76] versus 51.05 ± 15.52 fold [95% CI 37.44 to 64.66]; p = 0.034, respectively). There were no differences in any other parameters (BMP-2 at Week 0 and 4; BMP -7 at Weeks 0, 2 and 4; HIF-1α at Weeks 0 and 4; IL-6 at Weeks 0, 2 and 4; VEGF at Week 4). In the biomechanical assessment, ultimate stress and failure energy were greater in the CO2 group than in the control group at Week 4 (ultimate stress 259.96 ± 74.33 N [95% CI 167.66 to 352.25] versus 422.45 ± 99.32 N [95% CI 299.13 to 545.77]; p < 0.001, failure energy 311.32 ± 99.01 Nmm [95% CI 188.37 to 434.25] versus 954.97 ± 484.39 Nmm [95% CI 353.51 to 1556.42]; p = 0.003, respectively). There was no difference in stiffness (216.77 ± 143.39 N/mm [95% CI 38.73 to 394.81] versus 223.68 ± 122.17 N/mm [95% CI 71.99 to 375.37]; p = 0.92).
CONCLUSION
Transcutaneous application of CO2 accelerated bone generation in a distraction osteogenesis model of rabbit tibias. As demonstrated in previous studies, CO2 treatment might affect bone regeneration in distraction osteogenesis by promoting angiogenesis, blood flow, and endochondral ossification.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The use of the transcutaneous application of CO2 may open new possibilities for shortening healing time in patients with distraction osteogenesis. However, a deeper insight into the mechanism of CO2 in the local tissue is required before it can be used in future clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32732577
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001288
pii: 00003086-202008000-00037
pmc: PMC7371043
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bone Morphogenetic Proteins
0
Hypoxia-Inducible Factor 1
0
Interleukin-6
0
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
0
Carbon Dioxide
142M471B3J
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1922-1935Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009 Apr;129(4):549-58
pubmed: 18297297
Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2010 Aug;5(2):71-8
pubmed: 21811902
Calcif Tissue Int. 1999 Jun;64(6):542-6
pubmed: 10341028
Bone. 2004 Oct;35(4):892-8
pubmed: 15454096
Methods. 2001 Dec;25(4):402-8
pubmed: 11846609
J Orthop Trauma. 2003 Feb;17(2):113-8
pubmed: 12571500
Injury. 2011 Jun;42(6):556-61
pubmed: 21489534
Injury. 2008 Dec;39(12):1391-402
pubmed: 19027898
Injury. 2016 Sep;47 Suppl 3:S7-S14
pubmed: 27692111
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 May 22;20(1):237
pubmed: 31113412
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988 Aug;70(4):543-9
pubmed: 3403595
J Bone Miner Res. 2002 Mar;17(3):513-20
pubmed: 11874242
Injury. 2011 Jun;42(6):551-5
pubmed: 21489527
Instr Course Lect. 1989;38:325-30
pubmed: 2703719
J Bone Miner Res. 1999 Nov;14(11):1978-86
pubmed: 10571699
PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e24137
pubmed: 21931656
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 23;9(6):e100424
pubmed: 24956102
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Dec;84(12):2123-34
pubmed: 12473698
J Orthop Res. 2007 Feb;25(2):221-9
pubmed: 17106877
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jul;473(7):2383-93
pubmed: 25822454
J Craniofac Surg. 2006 Jan;17(1):100-8; discussion 109-10
pubmed: 16432416
J Orthop Trauma. 1998 Feb;12(2):111-6
pubmed: 9503300
JBJS Rev. 2015 Aug 11;3(8):
pubmed: 27490473
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2011 Apr 1;407(1):148-52
pubmed: 21371433
Angiology. 1997 Apr;48(4):337-43
pubmed: 9112881
J Otolaryngol. 2005 Dec;34(6):407-14
pubmed: 16343401
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Feb;(239):263-85
pubmed: 2912628
Wien Med Wochenschr. 1994;144(3):45-50
pubmed: 8017066
J Orthop Res. 1999 May;17(3):362-7
pubmed: 10376724
Bone. 2010 Mar;46(3):841-51
pubmed: 19913648
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Oct;(247):38-43
pubmed: 2676302
J Clin Invest. 2007 Jun;117(6):1616-26
pubmed: 17549257
J Dent Res. 2008 Feb;87(2):107-18
pubmed: 18218835
Clin Orthop Surg. 2015 Sep;7(3):383-91
pubmed: 26330963
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Apr;(301):4-9
pubmed: 8156694
Bone. 2004 May;34(5):849-61
pubmed: 15121017
J Orthop Res. 2002 Jul;20(4):779-88
pubmed: 12168667
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 Jan;(250):81-104
pubmed: 2403498
Bone. 2003 May;32(5):491-501
pubmed: 12753865
Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1130:149-164
pubmed: 24482171
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2004 May;13(3):170-5
pubmed: 15083117
Osteoporos Int. 2011 Jun;22(6):2011-5
pubmed: 21523398
Bone. 2007 Feb;40(2):522-8
pubmed: 17070744
Bone. 2010 Feb;46(2):363-8
pubmed: 19837196
Injury. 2008 Sep;39 Suppl 2:S45-57
pubmed: 18804573
Acta Physiol Scand. 2004 Nov;182(3):215-27
pubmed: 15491402
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 Jan;82(1):142-8
pubmed: 10697331
J Bone Miner Res. 2008 May;23(5):596-609
pubmed: 18433297
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2004 Apr 2;316(2):573-9
pubmed: 15020256
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 Jan;(250):73-80
pubmed: 2293947
Endocrinology. 2000 May;141(5):1667-74
pubmed: 10803575
J Bone Miner Res. 2012 May;27(5):1118-31
pubmed: 22275312
Bone. 2003 Dec;33(6):889-98
pubmed: 14678848
Tissue Eng. 2006 Nov;12(11):3181-8
pubmed: 17518632
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Dec 17;96(24):2077-84
pubmed: 25520342
J Pediatr Orthop. 1987 Mar-Apr;7(2):129-34
pubmed: 3558791
Science. 1965 Nov 12;150(3698):893-9
pubmed: 5319761
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1990;109(6):334-40
pubmed: 2073453
J Orthop Res. 2006 Apr;24(4):653-63
pubmed: 16514629
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Jan;(238):249-81
pubmed: 2910611
Acta Orthop Scand. 2003 Dec;74(6):709-13
pubmed: 14763703