Arch Hand Microsurg 2019; 24(3): 273-284  
The Effect of Cryopreservation of Allograft Nerve on the Recovery of Motor Function
Seung-Sik Choi1, Ilyong Park2, Jung Keun Hyun3, Jae-Uk Jung4, Jong-Pil Kim4
Departments of 1Kinesiology, 2Biomedical Engineering, 3Rehabilitation Medicine, and 4Orthopedic Surgery, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea
Correspondence to: Jong-Pil Kim
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Dankook University College of Medicine, 119 Dandaero, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan 31116, Korea
TEL: +82-41-550-3919, FAX: +82-41-550-3094, E-mail: kimjp@dankook.ac.kr
Received: July 25, 2019; Revised: August 5, 2019; Accepted: August 14, 2019; Published online: September 1, 2019.
© Korean Society for Surgery of the Hand, Korean Society for Microsurgery, and Korean Society for Surgery of the Peripheral Nerve. All rights reserved.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Purpose: Peripheral nerve allograft can be an acceptable alternative, but it has not yet become clinically useful because of immune response to foreign tissue. With significant advances in the research and tissue engineering, various alternatives to nerve autograft including synthetic nerve conduit and decellularization have been used, but their therapeutic effects were not satisfactory. The purpose of this study was to confirm the effectiveness of cryopreservation of the allograft nerve as a useful nerve-graft substitute.
Methods: A total of 39 Sprague-Dawley rats (recipient) and 13 Lewis rats (donor) weighing 200 g to 300 g were used in this study. Animals were randomly divided 3 groups and received ipsilateral sciatic nerve graft: autograft (group 1), allograft (group 2), and cryopreserved nerve allograft (group 3), Nerve regeneration was evaluated at sixteen weeks on the basis of the animal weight, ankle contracture angle, compound muscle action potential, isometric tetanic muscle force, wet muscle weight of the tibialis anterior muscle, and the histomorphometry.
Results: Cryopreserved nerve allograft (group 3) showed superior motor recovery than allograft group (group 2), which was comparable to those of autograft (group 1).
Conclusion: Pretreatment of nerve allograft using cryopreservation decreased rejection caused by immune response of the donor and improved motor nerve recovery. In clinical perspective, use of a pretreated nerve allograft can be an alternative to the autograft.
Keywords: Nerve, Allograft, Autograft, Cryopreservation, Decellularization


This Article

e-submission

Archives of J Korean Soc Surg Hand

Archives of ARMS

Archives

Indexed/Covered by