ArticleCell and tissue banking2021
Comparison of two different decellularization methods for processed nerve allograft.
Article in Cell and tissue banking, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decellularization of xenografted tumors provides cell-specificFrontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of processed nerve allografts as an alternative to autologous nerve grafts, the gold standard treatment for peripheral nerve defects, is increasing. However, it is not widely used in Korea due to cost and insurance issues. Moreover, the main detergent used in the conventional Hudson method is unavailable. Therefore, a new nerve allograft decellularization process is needed. We aimed to compare the traditional Hudson method with a novel decellularization process that may remove cellular content more efficiently while preserving the extracellular matrix (ECM) structure using low concentration sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and nuclease. After each decellularization process, DNA content was measured in nerve tissue. Masson's trichrome staining and scanning electron microscopy were performed to determine the state of preservation of the ECM. A significantly greater amount of DNA content was removed in the novel method, and the ECM structure was preserved in both methods. For the in vivo study, a 15-mm long sciatic nerve defect was created in two groups of Sprague-Dawley rats, and processed nerve allografts decellularized using the Hudson or novel method were transplanted. Functional and histological recovery results were measured 12 weeks post-transplantation. Ankle contracture angle, maximal isometric tetanic force of the tibialis anterior (TA), and the TA mass were compared between the groups, as well as the percent neural tissue (100 × neural area/intrafascicular area). There was no significant difference in functional and histological nerve recovery between the methods. The novel method is appropriate for developing a processed nerve allograft.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.