Cells Remain Viable When Collected With an In‐Line‐Suction Tissue Collector From Byproducts of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To investigate the viability of cells collected with an in‐line‐suction autologous tissue collector from the tissue byproducts of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, to characterize cells from different tissue types, and to identify mesenchymal stem cells. Methods Patients aged 14 to 50 years with ACL injuries requiring arthroscopic reconstruction surgery were offered enrollment and screened for participation. In total, 12 patients were enrolled in the descriptive laboratory study. Arthroscopic byproduct tissue was collected with an in‐line‐suction autologous tissue collector from 4 intraoperative collection sites for each patient: ACL stump, ACL fat pad, notchplasty debris, and tunnel drilling debris. All tissue samples were digested using collagenase, and the derived cellular populations were analyzed in vitro, characterizing cellular viability, proliferative potential, qualitative multipotent differentiation capacity, and cell‐surface marker presence. Results An equivalent mass of arthroscopic byproduct tissue was taken from each of the 4 intraoperative collection sites (1.12‐1.61 g, P = .433), which all showed an average viability of at least 99.95% and high average total nucleated cells (≥1.37 × 10 7 cells/mL). No significant differences in collected mass ( P = .433), cellular viability ( P = .880), or total nucleated cells ( P = .692) were observed between the 4 byproduct tissues. The byproduct tissues did exhibit significant differences in monocyte ( P = .037) and red blood cell ( P = .038) concentrations, specifically with greater values present in the ACL stump tissue. Cells from all byproduct tissues adhered to plastic cell culture flasks. Significant differences were found between colony‐forming unit fibroblast counts of the 4 byproduct tissues when plated at 10 6 ( P = .003) and 10 3 ( P = .016) cells as the initial seeding density. There was a significant relationship found between both the starting concentration (χ 2 = 32.7, P < .001) and the byproduct tissue type (χ 2 = 30.4, P < .001) to the presence of ≥80% confluency status at 10 days. Cells obtained from all 4 byproduct tissues qualitatively showed positive tri‐lineage (adipocyte, osteoblast, chondroblast) differentiation potential compared with negative controls under standardized in vitro differentiation conditions. Cells derived from all 4 byproduct tissues expressed cell‐surface antigens CD105+, CD73+, CD90+, CD45–, CD14–, and CD19– (>75%), and did not express CD45 (<10%). There were no statistically significant differences in cell‐surface antigens between the four byproduct tissues. Conclusions This descriptive laboratory study demonstrated that cells derived from arthroscopic byproduct tissues of ACL reconstruction remain viable when collected with an in‐line‐suction autologous tissue collector and these cells meet the ISCT criteria to qualify as mesenchymal stem cells. Clinical Relevance It is known that viable mesenchymal stem cells reside in byproduct tissue of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery (ACLR). Practical methods to harvest these cells at the point of care require further development. This study validates the use of an in‐line‐suction autologous tissue collector for the harvest of viable mesenchymal stem cells after ACLR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".