4.5 Article

Comparative study of the efficacy of decellularization treatment of allogenic and xenogeneic nerves as nerve conduits

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 104, Issue 2, Pages 445-454

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.35589

Keywords

decellularization; xenograft; allograft; nerve regeneration

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [24791901]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24791901] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to compare the results of allogenic and xenogeneic nerve grafts that were treated using decellularization. The sciatic nerves of Sprague-Dawley rats and the median nerves of Japanese white rabbits were decellularized with sodium dodecyl sulfate and Triton X-100 and examined with a scanning electron microscope and immunofluorescence staining. A bridge-graft into the sciatic nerve in Wistar rats was performed with the decellularized nerves (10 mm in length for short-term evaluation; 15 mm in length for long-term evaluation). As a control, an isograft was performed. The specimens were harvested at 4 weeks postoperatively and prepared for immunohistochemistry. Function, electrophysiological and histomorphological analyses were performed to evaluate nerve recovery at 24 weeks postoperatively. The 3-dimensional structure of the basal lamina column, on which the cell adhesion molecules were integrated, was preserved through the decellularization protocols. Limited ED1-positive macrophage invasion was observed, and abundant NF 160-positive axons, which were accompanied by S-100-positive Schwann cells, penetrated through the implanted nerves. The sciatic nerve function and electrophysiological and histomorphological analyses suggest that the xenogeneic nerve graft was statistically indistinguishable from the allogenic nerve graft but slightly inferior to the isograft in supporting the axonal regeneration and functional recovery. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available