4.1 Article

Regeneration of Splenic Autotransplants Attached on Liver by a Tissue Adhesive

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 42, Issue 5, Pages 1944-1948

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2010.01.073

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University [2007YK.2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The regeneration of splenic autotransplants remains unsatisfactory. The liver has a rich blood supply and is prone to form collateral vessels to nearby ischemic tissues. It should be valuable to study whether it is a new site to facilitate splenic regeneration. Materials and Methods. One hundred twenty Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into 12 groups. After splenectomy, each weighed spleen was attached to the diaphragmatic side of the left hepatic lobe using an adhesive. The rats were sacrificed on postoperative day(POD)s 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 70, and 84. Six spleens in each group were dissected for weighing and another 4 for histologic analysis (H&E). Splenic autografts of another 12 rats attached to the mesenterium were sacrificed on POD 28, 56, and 84 for histologic analysis (H&E). Results. The spleens attached to the liver underwent almost complete necrosis and then regenerated centripetally into structures comparable to a normal spleen, with typical red and white pulps as well as a marginal zone on POD 35. The mass of the implants recovered to more than two fifths of the original (44.2% +/- 3.6%) on POD 84. For splenic autografts attached to mesenterium, typical red and white pulps were observed on POD 56. The marginal zone was not clear on POD 84. Conclusion. The liver proved to be an appropriate site for splenic autotransplantation. Regeneration was histologically superior to that of splenic tissue attached to the mesenterium. The application of a tissue adhesive may be a new technique for splenic autotransplantation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available