Quenneville, É.

To assess articular cartilage in vivo, a noninvasive measurement is proposed to evaluate damage of the cartilage. It is hypothesized that glycosaminoglycan chemical exchange saturation transfer (gagCEST) can be applied as a noninvasive imaging technique as it would relate to electromechanical indentation and GAG content as measured with biochemical assays. This pilot study applies gagCEST MRI in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients to assess substantially damaged articular cartilage. The outcome was verified against electromechanical indentation and biochemical assays to assess the potential of gagCEST MRI. Five TKA patients were scanned on a 7.0 T MRI with a gagCEST sequence. Articular resurfacing cuts after TKA were obtained for electromechanical and biochemical analyses. The gagCEST MRI measurements on the medial condyle showed a moderate correlation with the GAG content, although sensitivity on the lateral condyle was lacking. Additionally, a strong negative correlation of gagCEST MRI with the electromechanical measurements was observed in the regression analysis. Correlation of gagCEST MRI with electromechanical measurements was shown, but the correlation of gagCEST MRI with GAG content was not convincing. In conclusion, gagCEST could be a useful tool to assess the GAG content in articular cartilage noninvasively, although the mismatch in heterogeneity requires further investigation.

Objective To compare the regenerative capacity of 2 distinct bilayer implants for the restoration of osteochondral defects in a preliminary sheep model. Methods Critical sized osteochondral defects were treated with a novel biomimetic poly-ε-caprolactone (PCL) implant (Treatment No. 2; n = 6) or a combination of Chondro-Gide and Orthoss (Treatment No. 1; n = 6). At 19 months postoperation, repair tissue ( n = 5 each) was analyzed for histology and biochemistry. Electromechanical mappings (Arthro-BST) were performed ex vivo. Results Histological scores, electromechanical quantitative parameter values, dsDNA and sGAG contents measured at the repair sites were statistically lower than those obtained from the contralateral surfaces. Electromechanical mappings and higher dsDNA and sGAG/weight levels indicated better regeneration for Treatment No. 1. However, these differences were not significant. For both treatments, Arthro-BST revealed early signs of degeneration of the cartilage surrounding the repair site. The International Cartilage Repair Society II histological scores of the repair tissue were significantly higher for Treatment No. 1 (10.3 ± 0.38 SE) compared to Treatment No. 2 (8.7 ± 0.45 SE). The parameters cell morphology and vascularization scored highest whereas tidemark formation scored the lowest. Conclusion There was cell infiltration and regeneration of bone and cartilage. However, repair was incomplete and fibrocartilaginous. There were no significant differences in the quality of regeneration between the treatments except in some histological scoring categories. The results from Arthro-BST measurements were comparable to traditional invasive/destructive methods of measuring quality of cartilage repair.