Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effectiveness and Biocompatibility of Decellularized Nerve Graft Using an In Vivo Rat Sciatic Nerve Model

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Aims and scope

Abstract

Background:

Decellularized nerve allografting is one of promising treatment options for nerve defect. As an effort to develop more efficient nerve graft, recently we have developed a new decellularization method for nerve allograft. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and biocompatibility of nerve graft decellularized by our newly developed method.

Methods:

Forty-eight inbred male Lewis rats were divided into two groups, Group I (autograft group, n = 25), Group II (decellularized isograft group, n = 23). Decellularized nerve grafts were prepared with our newly developed methods using amphoteric detergent and nuclease treatment. Serum cytokine level measurements at 0, 2, and 4 weeks and histologic evaluation for inflammatory cell infiltration at 6 and 16 weeks after nerve graft.

Results:

There was no significant difference in mean maximum isometric tetanic force and weight of tibialis anterior muscle or ankle angle at toe-off phase between two groups at 6 and 16 weeks survival time points (p > 0.05). There was no inflammatory cell infiltration in either group and histomorphometric assessments of 6- and 16-week specimens of the isograft group did not differ from those in the autograft group with regard to number of fascicle, cross sectional area, fascicle area ratio, and number of regenerated nerve cells.

Conclusion:

Based on inflammatory reaction, axonal regeneration, and functional outcomes, our newly developed decellularized nerve grafts were fairly biocompatible and had comparable effectiveness to autografts for nerve regeneration, which suggested it would be suitable for nerve reconstruction as an alternative to autograft.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Safa B, Jain S, Desai MJ, Greenberg JA, Niacaris TR, Nydick JA, et al. Peripheral nerve repair throughout the body with processed nerve allografts: Results from a large multicenter study. Microsurgery. 2020;40:527–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee SK, Wolfe SW. Peripheral nerve injury and repair. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8:243–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Walsh S, Biernaskie J, Kemp SW, Midha R. Supplementation of acellular nerve grafts with skin derived precursor cells promotes peripheral nerve regeneration. Neuroscience. 2009;164:1097–107.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kim JK, Koh YD, Kim JO, Seo DH. Development of a decellularization method to produce nerve allografts using less invasive detergents and hyper/hypotonic solutions. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:1690–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Waitayawinyu T, Parisi DM, Miller B, Luria S, Morton HJ, Chin SH, et al. A comparison of polyglycolic acid versus type 1 collagen bioabsorbable nerve conduits in a rat model: an alternative to autografting. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32:1521–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carriel V, Alaminos M, Garzón I, Campos A, Cornelissen M. Tissue engineering of the peripheral nervous system. Expert Rev Neurother. 2014;14:301–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Grinsell D, Keating CP. Peripheral nerve reconstruction after injury: a review of clinical and experimental therapies. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:698256.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Whitlock EL, Tuffaha SH, Luciano JP, Yan Y, Hunter DA, Magill CK, et al. Processed allografts and type I collagen conduits for repair of peripheral nerve gaps. Muscle Nerve. 2009;39:787–99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brooks DN, Weber RV, Chao JD, Rinker BD, Zoldos J, Robichaux MR, et al. Processed nerve allografts for peripheral nerve reconstruction: a multicenter study of utilization and outcomes in sensory, mixed, and motor nerve reconstructions. Microsurgery. 2012;32:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cho MS, Rinker BD, Weber RV, Chao JD, Ingari JV, Brooks D, et al. Functional outcome following nerve repair in the upper extremity using processed nerve allograft. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37:2340–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Karabekmez FE, Duymaz A, Moran SL. Early clinical outcomes with the use of decellularized nerve allograft for repair of sensory defects within the hand. Hand (N Y). 2009;4:245–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tang P, Kilic A, Konopka G, Regalbuto R, Akelina Y, Gardner T. Histologic and functional outcomes of nerve defects treated with acellular allograft versus cabled autograft in a rat model. Microsurgery. 2013;33:460–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shin RH, Vathana T, Giessler GA, Friedrich PF, Bishop AT, Shin AY. Isometric tetanic force measurement method of the tibialis anterior in the rat. Microsurgery. 2008;28:452–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shin YH, Park SY, Kim JK. Comparison of systematically combined detergent and nuclease-based decellularization methods for acellular nerve graft: an ex vivo characterization and in vivo evaluation. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2019;13:1241–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee JY, Giusti G, Wang H, Friedrich PF, Bishop AT, Shin AY. Functional evaluation in the rat sciatic nerve defect model: a comparison of the sciatic functional index, ankle angles, and isometric tetanic force. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1173–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Evans PJ, Mackinnon SE, Midha R, Wade JA, Hunter DA, Nakao Y, et al. Regeneration across cold preserved peripheral nerve allografts. Microsurgery. 1999;19:115–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mackinnon SE, Doolabh VB, Novak CB, Trulock EP. Clinical outcome following nerve allograft transplantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107:1419–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hirasawa Y, Tamai K, Katsumi Y, Sakakida K. Experimental study of nerve allografts: especially on the influence of histocompatibility in fresh nerve grafting. Transplant Proc. 1984;16:1694–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fox IK, Jaramillo A, Hunter DA, Rickman SR, Mohanakumar T, Mackinnon SE. Prolonged cold-preservation of nerve allografts. Muscle Nerve. 2005;31:59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Strasberg SR, Mackinnon SE, Hare GM, Narini PP, Hertl C, Hay JB. Reduction in peripheral nerve allograft antigenicity with warm and cold temperature preservation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;97:152–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sondell M, Lundborg G, Kanje M. Regeneration of the rat sciatic nerve into allografts made acellular through chemical extraction. Brain Res. 1998;795:44–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rovak JM, Bishop DK, Boxer LK, Wood SC, Mungara AK, Cederna PS. Peripheral nerve transplantation: the role of chemical acellularization in eliminating allograft antigenicity. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2005;21:207–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Urbanchek MS, Chung KC, Asato H, Washington LN, Kuzon WM Jr. Rat walking tracks do not reflect maximal muscle force capacity. J Reconstr Microsurg. 1999;15:143–9.

  24. Giusti G, Willems WF, Friedrich PF, Jensen MR, Bishop AT, Shin AY. Return of motor function after segmental nerve loss in a rat model: a comparison of autogenous nerve graft, collagen conduit and processed nerve allograft (Axogen). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;7:27–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tang P, Whiteman DR, Voigt C, Miller MC, Kim H. No difference in outcomes detected between decellular nerve allograft and cable autograft in rat sciatic nerve defects. J Bone Joint Surg. 2019;101:e42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology Research and Development Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (Grant No: HI17C1221), and by Seoul St. Mary’s Clinical Medicine Research Program of year 2018 through the The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. This research was supported by a grant (Grant No.: HI17C1221) of the Korea Health Technology Research and Development Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Banpo-daero 222, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Korea

    Dong Hyun Kim, Seung-Han Shin, Jae-Jin Lee & Yang-Guk Chung

  2. Department of Research and Development, Korea Public Tissue Bank, 37 Sagimakgol-ro 62beon-gil, Jungwon-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 13211, Korea

    Myeong-Kyu Lee

  3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, Korea

    Jae Kwang Kim

Authors
  1. Dong Hyun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seung-Han Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Myeong-Kyu Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jae-Jin Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jae Kwang Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yang-Guk Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yang-Guk Chung.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

The animal studies were performed after receiving approval of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) in University (IACUC approval No. CUMC-2019-0108-04).

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, D.H., Shin, SH., Lee, MK. et al. Effectiveness and Biocompatibility of Decellularized Nerve Graft Using an In Vivo Rat Sciatic Nerve Model. Tissue Eng Regen Med 18, 797–805 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13770-021-00353-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13770-021-00353-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation