Comparison of Processed Nerve Allograft and Laminin Derived Peptide Incorporated Nerve Conduit for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration.
10.4055/jkoa.2010.45.1.52
- Author:
Joo Yup LEE
1
;
Min Hyeok CHOI
;
Eun Young SHIN
;
Byung Moo MIN
;
Deule ROH
;
Dong June CHUNG
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, St. Vincent Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
peripheral nerve regeneration;
processed nerve allograft;
nerve conduit
- MeSH:
Action Potentials;
Animals;
Axons;
Laminin;
Muscles;
Myelin Sheath;
Peripheral Nerves;
Rabbits;
Regeneration;
Sciatic Nerve;
Transplantation, Homologous
- From:The Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association
2010;45(1):52-58
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To compare a processed nerve allograft, laminin derived peptide incorporated nerve conduit, and autograft in terms of electrodiagnostic testing and nerve histomorphometry for peripheral nerve regeneration in a rabbit sciatic nerve defect model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty New Zealand white rabbits were divided into three groups, and a unilateral 15 mm sciatic nerve defect was made. Group I, II and III was repaired with a reversed autograft, a processed acellular nerve allograft, and a laminin derived peptide incorporated nerve conduit, respectively. At twelve weeks, the animals were evaluated with the compound muscle action potential, wet muscle weight, and nerve histomorphometric parameters such as nerve area, number of axons, and myelin thickness. RESULTS: At twelve weeks, the compound muscle action potential for group I, II and III was 54.1%, 38.2% and 26.4%, respectively. Significant differences were found between the three groups (p<0.001, group I vs II; p<0.001, group I vs III; p<0.001, group II vs III). The wet muscle weight for group I, II and III was 57.8%, 54.4% and 43.9%, respectively. Group I had significantly more muscle weight than group III (p<0.001), but the difference was not significant with group II (p=0.256). Group II and III showed a significant difference (p=0.002). The number of axons in group III decreased and the shape of the axon was irregular, even though the nerve area and myelin thickness were similar in the three groups. CONCLUSION: An autograft remains the gold standard to repair a segmental nerve defect. Processed allograft demonstrated superior nerve recovery compared to the laminin derived peptide incorporated nerve conduit.
