Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35570113›Full record

ArticleJournal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS2022

Dynamic seeding versus microinjection of mesenchymal stem cells for acellular nerve allograft: an in vitro comparison.

Meiwand Bedar, Sofia Jerez, Nicholas Pulos, Andre J van Wijnen, Alexander Y Shin

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Meiwand BedarDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Plastic Surgery, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Sofia JerezDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Nicholas PulosDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Andre J van WijnenUniversity of Vermont, Department of Biochemistry, Burlington VT, USA.
Alexander Y ShinDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: shin.alexander@mayo.edu.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USMayo Clinic · USRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

Bridging the gap: Angiogenesis and stem cell seeding of processed nerve allograftR01NS102360 · NINDS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI SHIN, ALEXANDER Y. · 2018 to 2022
$1.7M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS102360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMesenchymal 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.

methodsSciatic 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.

resultsNo 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 compared to microinjection (p = 0.02).

conclusionMSCs remain viable after both dynamic seeding and microinjection in ANAs. Higher seeding efficiency was observed with microinjection, but dynamic seeding resulted in a more uniform distribution. In vivo studies are required to assess the effect on gene expression profiles and functional motor outcomes.

Indexed as

Mesenchymal Stem CellsAllograftsAnimalsMicroinjectionsRatsRats, Inbred LewRats, Sprague-DawleyCell deliveryCell injectionDynamic seedingMesenchymal stem cellsNerve allograft

Identifiers

PMID35570113
PMCPMC9391259
OpenAlexW4224279383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.