Dynamic seeding versus microinjection of mesenchymal stem cells for acellular nerve allograft: an in vitro comparison.
Bedar M., Jerez S., Pulos N., van Wijnen AJ., Shin AY.
Animal Study, published in J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2022) — 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
- J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2022)
- Country
- Netherlands
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 35570113
- PMCID
- PMC9391259
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.04.017
- Citations
- 2
Abstract (original English)
Background Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC)-supplemented acellular nerve allografts (ANA) are a potential strategy to improve the treatment of segmental nerve defects. Prior to clinical translation, optimal cell delivery methods must be defined. While two techniques, dynamic seeding and microinjection, have been described, the seeding efficiency, cell viability, and distribution of MSCs in ANAs are yet to be compared. Methods Sciatic nerve segments of Sprague-Dawley rats were decellularized, and MSCs were harvested from the adipose tissue of Lewis rats. Cell viability was evaluated after injection of MSCs through a 27-gauge needle at different flow rates (10, 5, and 1 µL/min). MSCs were dynamically seeded or longitudinally injected into ANAs. Cell viability, seeding efficiency, and distribution were evaluated using LIVE/DEAD and MTS assays, scanning electron microscopy, and Hoechst staining. Results No statistically significant difference in cell viability after injection at different flow rates was seen. After cell delivery, 84.1 ± 3.7% and 87.8 ± 2.8% of MSCs remained viable in the dynamic seeding and microinjection group, respectively (p = 0.41). The seeding efficiency of microinjection (100.4%±5.6) was significantly higher than dynamic seeding (48.1%±8.6) on day 1 (p = 0.001). Dynamic seeding demonstrated a significantly more uniform cell distribution over the course of the ANA
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.