Comprehensive ex vivo and in vivo preclinical evaluation of novel chemo enzymatic decellularized peripheral nerve allografts
García-García ÓD., El Soury M., Campos F., Sánchez-Porras D., Geuna S., Alaminos M.
Animal Study, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Animal Study
- Journal
- Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2023)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 37082209
- PMCID
- PMC10111265
- DOI
- 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1162684
- Citations
- 7
Abstract (original English)
As a reliable alternative to autografts, decellularized peripheral nerve allografts (DPNAs) should mimic the complex microstructure of native nerves and be immunogenically compatible. Nevertheless, there is a current lack of decellularization methods able to remove peripheral nerve cells without significantly altering the nerve extracellular matrix (ECM). The aims of this study are firstly to characterize ex vivo , in a histological, biochemical, biomechanical and ultrastructural way, three novel chemical-enzymatic decellularization protocols (P1, P2 and P3) in rat sciatic nerves and compared with the Sondell classic decellularization method and then, to select the most promising DPNAs to be tested in vivo . All the DPNAs generated present an efficient removal of the cellular material and myelin, while preserving the laminin and collagen network of the ECM (except P3) and were free from any significant alterations in the biomechanical parameters and biocompatibility properties. Then, P1 and P2 were selected to evaluate their regenerative effectivity and were compared with Sondell and autograft techniques in an in vivo model of sciatic defect with a 10-mm gap, after 15 weeks of follow-up. All study groups showed a partial motor and sensory recovery that were in correlation with the histological, histomorphometrical and ultrastructural analyses of nerve regeneration, being P2 the
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.