Periosteum and fascia lata: Are they so different?

Julie Manon; Robin Evrard; Louis Maistriaux; Lies Fievé; Ugo Heller; Delphine Magnin; Jean Boisson; Natacha Kadlub; Thomas Schubert; Benoît Lengelé; Catherine Behets; Olivier Cornu

doi:10.3389/fbioe.2022.944828

Periosteum and fascia lata: Are they so different?

Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022 Oct 19:10:944828. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.944828. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Julie Manon^{1

2

3

4}, Robin Evrard^{1

2

3

4}, Louis Maistriaux^{2

3}, Lies Fievé², Ugo Heller^{5

6}, Delphine Magnin⁷, Jean Boisson⁶, Natacha Kadlub^{5

6}, Thomas Schubert^{1

4}, Benoît Lengelé², Catherine Behets², Olivier Cornu^{1

4}

Affiliations

¹ Neuromusculoskeletal Lab (NMSK), Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.
² Morphology Lab (MORF), IREC, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.
³ Transplantation and Experimental Surgery Lab (CHEX), IREC, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium.
⁴ Centre de Thérapie Cellulaire et Tissulaire Locomoteur, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
⁵ APHP, Necker Enfants Malades, Unit of Maxillofacial Surgery and Plastic Surgery, Paris, France.
⁶ Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Techniques Avancées (ENSTA) de Paris, Institut des Sciences de la Mécanique et Applications Industrielles (IMSIA), Paris, France.
⁷ Bio- and Soft Matter (BSMA), Institute of Condensed Matter and Nanosciences (IMCN), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.

Abstract

Introduction: The human fascia lata (HFL) is used widely in reconstructive surgery in indications other than fracture repair. The goal of this study was to compare microscopic, molecular, and mechanical properties of HFL and periosteum (HP) from a bone tissue engineering perspective. Material and Methods: Cadaveric HP and HFL (N = 4 each) microscopic morphology was characterized using histology and immunohistochemistry (IHC), and the extracellular matrix (ECM) ultrastructure assessed by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM). DNA, collagen, elastin, glycosaminoglycans, major histocompatibility complex Type 1, and bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) contents were quantified. HP (N = 6) and HFL (N = 11) were submitted to stretch tests. Results: Histology and IHC highlighted similarities (Type I collagen fibers and two-layer organization) but also differences (fiber thickness and compaction and cell type) between both tissues, as confirmed using SEM. The collagen content was statistically higher in HFL than HP (735 vs. 160.2 μg/mg dry weight, respectively, p < 0.0001). On the contrary, DNA content was lower in HFL than HP (404.75 vs. 1,102.2 μg/mg dry weight, respectively, p = 0.0032), as was the immunogenic potential (p = 0.0033). BMP-2 and BMP-7 contents did not differ between both tissues (p = 0.132 and p = 0.699, respectively). HFL supported a significantly higher tension stress than HP. Conclusion: HP and HFL display morphological differences, despite their similar molecular ECM components. The stronger stretching resistance of HFL can specifically be explained by its higher collagen content. However, HFL contains many fewer cells and is less immunogenic than HP, as latter is rich in periosteal stem cells. In conclusion, HFL is likely suitable to replace HP architecture to confer a guide for bone consolidation, with an absence of osteogenicity. This study could pave the way to a bio-engineered periosteum built from HFL.

Keywords: fascia lata; fracture healing; periosteum; tissue engineering; tissular composition; tissular properties; type 1 collagen membrane.