Peripheral nerve grafts: experimental studies in the dog and chimpanzee to define homograft limitations.

T. Ducker,G. J. Hayes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3171/JNS.1970.32.2.0236

IF: 5.408

1970-02-01

Journal of Neurosurgery

Abstract:ERVE homografting started experimentally in 1870 with the work of Philipeaux and Vulpian ~4 and clinically in 1878 with that of Albert2 From the time of these early studies nearly 90 years ago to the present day, nerve homografts have usually failed because they provoked such a severe host reaction. Consequently, after World War II, Spurling, et al./9 and Seddon and Holmes TM concluded that homografts were not helpful as a means to bridge an irreducible gap in nerve repair. However, the problems of homografts did not apply to autografts, for the latter met with nearly immediate success in the early 1900's 13 It became apparent with the general advances in medicine that the difference between homologous and autogenous tissue lies in the rejection phenomenon. To avoid graft rejection, physicians turned solely to autografts. However, in many cases autografts were not available, because the length of the lesion and the diameter of the nerve involved were so large that the patient was unable to spare a suitable graft without considerable neurological loss. 17 Due to the lack of suitable autogenous material in the typical patient who needs a nerve graft, experimental studies have again turned to homografts. Sanders and Young ~6 proved clearly that the immune reaction must be prevented if this type of graft was to be successful. Wallerian degeneration, ~ irradiation, ~ immuno-suppressive drugs, 12 and a combination of degeneration and irradiation 1~ have been partially effective in reducing the host reaction. But the degree of success with