Cargando…

Decreased Colony-Forming Ability of Subacromial Bursa-Derived Cells During Revision Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

PURPOSE: To compare the cellular viability and differentiation potential of subacromial bursa–derived cells (SBDCs) located over the rotator cuff muscle and tendon of patients undergoing primary versus revision arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). METHODS: Subacromial bursa was harvested from 18...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Morikawa, Daichi, LeVasseur, Matthew R., Luczak, S. Brandon, Mancini, Michael R., Bellas, Nicholas, McCarthy, Mary Beth R., Cote, Mark P., Berthold, Daniel P., Muench, Lukas N., Mazzocca, Augustus D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8365201/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34430884
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2021.03.010
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To compare the cellular viability and differentiation potential of subacromial bursa–derived cells (SBDCs) located over the rotator cuff muscle and tendon of patients undergoing primary versus revision arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). METHODS: Subacromial bursa was harvested from 18 primary (57.1 ± 4.6 years) and 12 revision ARCRs (57.3 ± 6.7 years). Bursa was collected from 2 sites (over rotator cuff tendon and muscle), digested with collagenase, and grown in culture. The number of nucleated cells, colony-forming units (CFUs), differentiation potential, and mesenchymal stem cell surface markers were compared in primary and revision cases. RESULTS: There was no difference in the number of nucleated cells between primary and revision ARCR harvested from the subacromial bursa overlying the tendon (3019.3 ± 1420.6 cells/mg and 3541.7 ± 2244.2 cells/mg, respectively; P = .912) or muscle (2753.5 ± 1547.1 cells/mg and 2989.0 ± 2231.4 cells/mg, respectively; P = .777). There was no difference in the number of CFUs between primary and revision ARCR over the rotator cuff tendon (81.5 ± 49.5 CFUs and 53.0 ± 36.9 CFUs, respectively; P = .138), but there were significantly fewer CFUs over the muscle in revision cases (28.1 ± 22.7 CFUs) compared with primary cases (55.7 ± 34.5 CFUs) (P = .031). SBDCs from revision ARCR expressed characteristic mesenchymal stem cell surface epitopes and had multidifferentiation potentials for chondrogenesis, osteogenesis, and adipogenesis. CONCLUSIONS: SBDCs harvested over the rotator cuff muscle demonstrated significantly decreased colony-forming abilities in revision arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs compared with primary repairs. However, the subacromial bursa retains its pluripotent differentiation potential for chondrogenic, osteogenic, and adipogenic lineages in the revision setting. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The subacromial bursa may play a role in the healing response of the repaired rotator cuff. This capacity is not necessarily diminished in the revision setting and may be harnessed as an orthobiologic.