Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30175138›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2018

In Vivo Evaluation of Different Collagen Scaffolds in an Achilles Tendon Defect Model.

Carolin Gabler, Jan-Oliver Saß, Susann Gierschner, Tobias Lindner, Rainer Bader, Thomas Tischer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. In Vitro Innovation of Tendon Tissue Engineering Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Carolin GablerRostock University Medical Center, Department of Orthopedics, Biomechanics and Implant Technology Laboratory, Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8590-0507
Jan-Oliver SaßRostock University Medical Center, Department of Orthopedics, Biomechanics and Implant Technology Laboratory, Rostock, Germany.
Susann GierschnerRostock University Medical Center, Department of Orthopedics, Biomechanics and Implant Technology Laboratory, Rostock, Germany.
Tobias LindnerRostock University Medical Center, Core Facility Multimodal Small Animal Imaging, 18057 Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7826-3132
Rainer BaderRostock University Medical Center, Department of Orthopedics, Biomechanics and Implant Technology Laboratory, Rostock, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9157-1858
Thomas TischerRostock University Medical Center, Department of Orthopedics, Biomechanics and Implant Technology Laboratory, Rostock, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the present study, a newly introduced bovine cross-linked collagen scaffold (test material) was investigated in vivo in an Achilles tendon defect model and compared to a commercially available porcine collagen scaffold (control material). In total, 28 male Sprague Dawley rats (about 400 g) were examined. The defined Achilles tendon defect of 5 mm of the right hind limb was replaced by one of the scaffold materials. After euthanasia, the hind limbs were transected for testing. Biomechanical evaluation was carried out via tensile testing (n = 8 each group, observation time: 28 days). Nonoperated tendons from the bilateral side were used as a control (native tendon, n = 4). For the histological evaluation, 12 animals were sacrificed at 14 and 28 days postoperatively (n = 3 each group and time point). Stained slices (Hematoxylin & Eosin) were evaluated qualitatively in terms of presence of cells and cell migration into scaffolds as well as structure and degradation of the scaffold. All transected hind limbs were additionally analyzed using MRI before testing to verify if the tendon repair using a collagen scaffold was still intact after the observation period. The maximum failure loads of both scaffold materials (test material: 54.5 ± 16.4 N, control: 63.1 ± 19.5 N) were in the range of native tendon (76.6 ± 11.6 N, p ≥ 0.07). The stiffness of native tendons was twofold higher (p ≤ 0.01) and the tear strength was approximately fivefold higher (p ≤ 0.01) compared to the repaired tendons with both scaffolds. Histological findings indicated that neither the test nor the control material induced inflammation, but the test material underwent a slower remodeling process. An overall repair failure rate of 48% was observed via MRI. The experimental data of the newly developed test material showed similar outcomes compared to the commercially available control material. The high repair failure rate indicated that MRI is recommended as an auxiliary measurement tool to validate experimental data.

Indexed as

Tissue ScaffoldsWound HealingAchilles TendonAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaCattleCollagenMaleRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyRuptureSwineTensile StrengthCollagen

Identifiers

PMID30175138
PMCPMC6106734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.