4.6 Article

In Vivo Peripheral Nerve Repair Using Tendon-Derived Nerve Guidance Conduits

期刊

ACS BIOMATERIALS SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
卷 2, 期 6, 页码 937-945

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00034

关键词

tendon; tissue slice; biomaterials; nerve repair; sciatic nerve

资金

  1. NIH [1R03EB017402-01]
  2. NSF
  3. American Heart Association
  4. National Science Foundation [ECS-0335765]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is an urgent need for a peripheral nerve repair product that can match or exceed the abilities of the current gold-standard, nerve autografts. Using a sectioning-based fabrication technique, decellularized tendon sections formed into tubular conduits that maintain the native structure of the collagen. Our previous studies have demonstrated that these collagen structures provide nanotopographical growth guidance cues for regenerating neurons and support glia. Here, the regenerative abilities of the tendon-derived nerve guidance conduits to repair a critically sized defect (15 mm) are evaluated in a rat sciatic nerve model. Using the conduits, functional recovery occurs at a similar rate to isografts, when evaluated with a sciatic function index test. However, muscular recovery, as measured by gastrocnemius weight, was not as great in the conduit-treated group. Both conduit and isograft repairs are histologically evaluated using Masson's trichrome stain and immunofluorescent staining for neurofilament-160 and S100 (markers for neurons and Schwann cells, respectively). This evaluation shows that by week 14, conduits promote regrowth of both neuronal tissue and some physiological support structures, such as blood vessels and epi/perineurium-like structures. Lastly, positive staining for these two markers at week 14 is calculated as a quantitative means of assessment, and shows greater total content of neurofilament-160 and 5100 in conduits than in isografts, but a smaller percent area, which may be a result of the greater cross-sectional area of the conduit.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据