Regeneration of facial nerve defects with xenogeneic acellular nerve grafts in a rat model

Abstract

XANG represents an alternative approach for the reconstruction of peripheral facial nerve defects.

Current Status in Peripheral Nerve Xenotransplantation

“…They later conducted a study in rat facial nerve defects, achieving similar results to those obtained with allografts [6]. Similar results were reported by Zhu et al [1].…”

“…A total of 22 articles were retrieved, all of them experimentally controlled studies in animals. Most studies used rats as host species [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. Four studies used mice [16][17][18][19].…”

“…The most commonly used nerve for the nerve defect was the sciatic nerve [2,3,5,[8][9][10][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. As for donor species, New Zealand rabbits [1,3,6,12] and Sprague-Dawley rats [16][17][18][19] were the most commonly used. One study compared the outcomes using different species [9].…”

Nerve Repair Using Decellularized Nerve Grafts in Rat Models. A Review of the Literature

“…There are three main decellularization protocols for the creation of a functional graft: the one described by Sondell et al (1998) and Hudson et al (2004) , and the combined Hudson protocol added with chondroitinase ABC by Krekoski et al (2001) . SP was used in 33% of the studies ( Jia et al, 2012 , 2017 ; Wang et al, 2012 ; Zhang et al, 2014 ; Zheng et al, 2014 ; Zhou et al, 2014 ; Zhu and Weihua, 2014 ; Huang et al, 2015 ; Garcia-Pérez et al, 2017 ; Zhu et al, 2015 , 2017 ); HP was used in 24% ( Saheb-Al-Zamani et al, 2013 ; Gao et al, 2014a ; Hoben et al, 2015 ; Marquardt et al, 2015 ; Kim et al, 2016 ; Tajdaran et al, 2016 ; Yan et al, 2016 ; Cai et al, 2017 ), and a combined HP was used in 12% ( Whitlock et al, 2009 ; Vasudevan et al, 2014 ; Wood et al, 2014 ; Jiang et al, 2016 ). Other studies (6%) used a FTP with or without the addition of chondroitinase ABC as introduced by Krekoski et al (2001 ; Godinho et al, 2013 ; Wang H. et al, 2016 ).…”

“…In the studies that used the classic decellularization protocols (SP, HP, NP, and FTP), the majority (75.8%) used grafts ranging in length from 10 to 15 mm ( Whitlock et al, 2009 ; Liu et al, 2011 ; Nagao et al, 2011 ; Jia et al, 2012 , 2017 ; Godinho et al, 2013 ; Zhang and Lv, 2013 ; Gao et al, 2014a ; Wood et al, 2014 ; Zhang et al, 2014 ; Zheng et al, 2014 ; Zhou et al, 2014 ; Huang et al, 2015 ; Wakimura et al, 2015 ; Zhu et al, 2015 ; Jiang et al, 2016 ; Kim et al, 2016 ; Kusaba et al, 2016 ; Tajdaran et al, 2016 ; Wang W. et al, 2016 ; Wang et al, 2017b ; Cai et al, 2017 ; Garcia-Pérez et al, 2017 ; Xiang et al, 2017 ). Among the others, only Zhu and Weihua (2014) used a shorter graft (6 mm), while others still used longer grafts: a 20-mm graft in five studies ( Wang et al, 2012 ; Saheb-Al-Zamani et al, 2013 ; Hoben et al, 2015 ; Yan et al, 2016 ; Wang H. et al, 2016 ); a 30-mm graft in two ( Whitlock et al, 2009 ; Marquardt et al, 2015 ); a 35–40 mm graft in two ( Saheb-Al-Zamani et al, 2013 ; Vasudevan et al, 2014 ), and a 60- mm graft in one study ( Saheb-Al-Zamani et al, 2013 ). The mean graft length used with the SP was 12.6 mm, 16.7 mm with the HP, 21 mm with the NP, and 12.5 mm with the FTP.…”