Muscle & nerve · 2011
Acellular nerve allografts in peripheral nerve regeneration: a comparative study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Moore Amy M, MacEwan Matthew, Santosa Katherine B, Chenard Kristofer E, Ray Wilson Z, Hunter Daniel A, Mackinnon Susan E, Johnson Philip J
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Processed nerve allografts offer a promising alternative to nerve autografts in the surgical management of peripheral nerve injuries where short deficits exist.
METHODS: Three established models of acellular nerve allograft (cold-preserved, detergent-processed, and AxoGen-processed nerve allografts) were compared with nerve isografts and silicone nerve guidance conduits in a 14-mm rat sciatic nerve defect.
RESULTS: All acellular nerve grafts were superior to silicone nerve conduits in support of nerve regeneration. Detergent-processed allografts were similar to isografts at 6 weeks postoperatively, whereas AxoGen-processed and cold-preserved allografts supported significantly fewer regenerating nerve fibers. Measurement of muscle force confirmed that detergent-processed allografts promoted isograft-equivalent levels of motor recovery 16 weeks postoperatively. All acellular allografts promoted greater amounts of motor recovery compared with silicone conduits.
CONCLUSION: These findings provide evidence that differential processing for removal of cellular constituents in preparing acellular nerve allografts affects recovery in vivo.
METHODS: Three established models of acellular nerve allograft (cold-preserved, detergent-processed, and AxoGen-processed nerve allografts) were compared with nerve isografts and silicone nerve guidance conduits in a 14-mm rat sciatic nerve defect.
RESULTS: All acellular nerve grafts were superior to silicone nerve conduits in support of nerve regeneration. Detergent-processed allografts were similar to isografts at 6 weeks postoperatively, whereas AxoGen-processed and cold-preserved allografts supported significantly fewer regenerating nerve fibers. Measurement of muscle force confirmed that detergent-processed allografts promoted isograft-equivalent levels of motor recovery 16 weeks postoperatively. All acellular allografts promoted greater amounts of motor recovery compared with silicone conduits.
CONCLUSION: These findings provide evidence that differential processing for removal of cellular constituents in preparing acellular nerve allografts affects recovery in vivo.