Dergiler / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2022 / Cilt: 56 - Sayı: 3

The effect of endostatin on angiogenesis and osteogenesis of steroid-induced osteonecrosis of the femoral head in a rabbit model

Sayfa
178–186
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

ES mRNA in the femoral head was undifferentiated and increased in the GC, ES, and GC&ES group compared with group CON.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether endostatin, a crucial anti-angiogenic factor, plays a negative role in angiogenesis and osteogenesis and aggravates the progression of osteonecrosis of the femoral head induced by steroid use in a rabbit model.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methods: 66 New Zealand white rabbits were randomly divided into four groups: glucocorticoid model (GC) group (GC group, n = 18), glucocorticoid model and endostatin group (GC&ES group, n = 18), ES group (ES group, n = 18), and blank control group (CON group, n = 12).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:ES mRNA in the femoral head was undifferentiated and increased in the GC, ES, and GC&ES group compared with group CON.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether endostatin, a crucial anti-angiogenic factor, plays a negative role in angiogenesis and osteogenesis and aggravates the progression of osteonecrosis of the femoral head induced by steroid use in a rabbit model. Methods: 66 New Zealand white rabbits were randomly divided into four groups: glucocorticoid model (GC) group (GC group, n = 18), glucocorticoid model and endostatin group (GC&ES group, n = 18), ES group (ES group, n = 18), and blank control group (CON group, n = 12). In the GC group, 10 μg/ kg lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was intravenously injected into the ear margin, and 24h after LPS injection, 20 mg/kg GC methylprednisolone (MPS) was injected into the gluteus muscle three times, each time at an interval of 24h. The animals of the GC&ES group were given as same treatment as the GC group, except for the addition of ES. MPS was not used in the ES group and CON group. ES group was only given ES, while the CON group was only given the same amount of normal saline. All animals successfully established models of femoral head necrosis, and then the difference among the Immunohistochemistry, Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis, Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, Biomechanical test, etracyclline-calcein double labeling, and Van Gieson staining indices were compared among the four groups. Results: The combination of MPS and LPS was successful in establishing the femoral head necrosis model in New Zealand white rabbits. The incidence of osteonecrosis after MPS and LPS intervention was 70% (7/10), while that plus ES was 100% (10/10). At the same time, after MPS and LPS intervention, while the empty bone lacuna rate of the femoral head was significantly increased, the number of osteoblasts was decreased. Also, the expressions of CD31 positive cells, Runx2, Osterix, COL1A1, and VEGF mRNA in the femoral head were decreased, and the levels of osteogenesis-related protein b-ALP, OCN, and angiogenic factor VEGF in the femoral head were decreased. The percentage of the trabecular bone area (%Tb.Ar), trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), trabecular number (Tb.N), labeled perimeter percent (%L.Pm), mineral apposition rate (MAR), and bone formation rate (BFR/BS) in the femoral head after MPs and LPS intervention detected by tetracycline calcein double labeling and Van Gieson staining decreased significantly, except trabecular separation (Tb.Sp) increased significantly. The compressive strength (CS), elastic modulus (EM), and strain energy (SE) of the femoral head examed by biomechanical measurement decreased significantly. All the above changes were more obvious after adding ES intervention. ES mRNA in the femoral head was undifferentiated and increased in the GC, ES, and GC&ES group compared with group CON.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

LI, D., SONG, Q. C., ZHAO, Y., DUAN, D. P. (2022). The effect of endostatin on angiogenesis and osteogenesis of steroid-induced osteonecrosis of the femoral head in a rabbit model. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 56 - Sayı: 3, 178–186. https://ajindex.com/articles/427946

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (1)

  1. Torgashin AN, Rodionova SS, Shumsky AA, et al. Treatment of aseptic necrosis of the femoral head. Clinical guidelines. Clinical guidelines. Naučnopraktičeskaâ revmatologiâ. 2021;58(6):637-645. [CrossRef] 2. Mont MA, Cherian JJ, Sierra RJ, Jones LC, Lieberman JR. Nontraumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head: where do we stand today? A ten-year update. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(19):1604-1627. [CrossRef] 3. Mont MA, Salem HS, Piuzzi NS, Goodman SB, Jones LC. Nontraumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head: where do we stand today?: A 5-year update. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102(12):1084-1099. [CrossRef] 4. Mutijima E, De Maertelaer V, Deprez M, Malaise M, Hauzeur JP. The apoptosis of osteoblasts and osteocytes in femoral head osteonecrosis: its specificity and its distribution. Clin Rheumatol. 2014;33(12):1791-1795. [CrossRef] 5. Tian L, Wen Q, Dang X, You W, Fan L, Wang K. Immune response associated with toll-like receptor 4 signaling pathway leads to steroid-induced femoral head osteonecrosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:18. [CrossRef] 6. Assouline-Dayan Y, Chang C, Greenspan A, Shoenfeld Y, Gershwin ME. Pathogenesis and natural history of osteonecrosis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2002;32(2):94-124. [CrossRef] 7. Aaron RK. Concepts of the pathogenesis of osteonecrosis. Tech Orthop. 2001;16(1):101-104. [CrossRef] 8. Jones LC, Hungerford DS. The pathogenesis of osteonecrosis. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56(56):179-196. 9. Panin MA, Zagorodniy NV, Karchebnyi NN, Sadkov IA, Zakirova AR. Modern view on pathogenesis of non traumatic osteonecrosis. N N Priorov J Traumatol Orthop. 2017;2:69-75. 10. Huard J. Stem cells, blood vessels, and angiogenesis as major determinants for musculoskeletal tissue repair. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(6):1212-1220. [CrossRef] 11. Yamashiro DJ, Cohn SL. Angiogenesis. Pediatr Oncol. 2005. 12. Feige JJ, Pagès G, Soncin F. Molecular Mechanisms of Angiogenesis; 2014. [CrossRef] 13. Wicki A, Christofori G. The Angiogenic Switch in Tumorigenesis; Tumor Angiogenesis. 2008;1(4):67-88. 14. Sinkovics J Horák A. Angiogenesis, antiangiogenesis [Angiogenesis, anti-angiogenesis]. Orv Hetil; 1998;139(20):1269. 15. Hellsten Y, Hoier B, Gliemann L. What turns off the angiogenic switch in skeletal muscle? Exp Physiol. 2015;100(7):772-773. [CrossRef] 16. Printers C, Carmeliet p, jain r. Angiogenesis in health and disease. Nat Med. 2003;9(6):653-660. 17. Veikkola T, Alitalo K. VEGFs, receptors and angiogenesis. Semin Cancer Biol. 1999;9(3):211-220. [Cr