Caroline A. Hundepool, Tim H. J. Nijhuis, Behnam Mohseny, Ruud W. Selles and Steven E. R. Hovius
For decades the gold standard for reconstructing a large peripheral nerve defect has been, and remains, the nerve autograft. Alternatives to the nerve autograft include biological conduits and vessels. Adding stem cells in the lumen of a nerve conduit has been the subject of multiple studies. The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to summarize animal experimental studies on the effect of stem cells as a luminal additive when reconstructing a peripheral nerve defect with a nerve graft.
A literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed from inception to April 2012, searching for animal experiments on peripheral nerve reconstruction models in which a nerve conduit was used with and without the support of 3 different types of stem cells. Stem cells were analyzed according to their origin: bone marrow, adipose tissue, and other origins. Included studies had consistent outcome measurements: walking track analysis, muscle mass ratio, and electrophysiology.
Forty-four studies were included in the final analysis. Forest plots of the 3 outcome measurements (walking track analysis, muscle mass ratio, and electrophysiology) showed positive effects of stem cells on the regeneration of peripheral nerves at different time points. Almost all comparisons showed significant differences for all 3 stem cells groups compared with a control group in which stem cells were not used.
The present report systematically analyzed the different studies that used stem cells as a luminal additive when bridging a large peripheral nerve defect. All 3 different stem cell groups showed a beneficial effect when used in the reconstruction compared with control groups in which stem cells were not used.
Caroline A. Hundepool, Tim H. J. Nijhuis, Dimitra Kotsougiani, Patricia F. Friedrich, Allen T. Bishop and Alexander Y. Shin
Commercially available processed nerve allografts have been shown to be inferior to autografts in previous animal studies. The authors hypothesized that combining different processing and storage techniques will result in improved nerve ultrastructure preservation, lower immunogenicity, and minimized cellular debris. Different processing protocols were evaluated using chemical detergents, enzymes, and irradiation, with the addition the of enzyme elastase, were used. Additionally, the difference between cold and frozen storage was investigated. The goal of this study was to create an optimized nerve allograft.
Fifty rat nerves were decellularized with modifications of previous protocols and the addition of elastase. Subsequently, the nerve segments were stored at either 4°C or −80°C. Both processed and fresh control nerves were analyzed with confocal microscopy using immunohistochemical staining on the basal lamina (laminin γ-1), Schwann cells (S100 protein), and immunogenicity using major histocompatibility complex–I (MHCI) staining. Morphology of the ultrastructure and amount of cellular debris were analyzed on cross-sections of the nerves stained with toluidine blue and H & E, and by using electron microscopy.
Nerve ultrastructure was preserved with all decellularization protocols. Storage at −80°C severely altered nerve ultrastructure after any decellularization method. Elastase was found to significantly reduce the immunogenicity and amount of Schwann cells, while maintaining good structural properties.
Reduced immunogenicity, diminished cellular debris, and the elimination of Schwann cells was observed when elastase was added to the nerve processing while maintaining ultrastructure. Storage at −80°C after the decellularization process heavily damaged the nerve ultrastructure as compared with cold storage. Further in vivo studies are needed to prove the nerve regenerative capacity of these optimized allografts.