Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

An ultrastructural comparison of peripheral nerve allografts and autografts

Summary

There is a marked difference in the cellular response of the host to peripheral nerve allografts and autografts. The response elicited by allografts is characterised by invasion of tissue with lymphocytes, plasma cells and activated macrophages. These cells disrupt the nerve architecture, and cause rupture and consequent compression of the neurolemmal tubes which are the essential conduit element of a nerve graft.

By contrast, in the autograft, regeneration follows the initial process of Wallerian degeneration without the complication of immune reaction. The Schwann cells and macrophages rapidly remove the myelin and axons from the neurolemmal tubes of the donor nerve; new axonal sprouts are then able to traverse these channels and reach the periphery in large numbers. If this process is delayed, the neurolemmal tubes in the distal nerve segment are compressed by surrounding collagen which limits the size of regenerating axons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barnes, R., Bacsich, P., Wyburn, G. M., Kerr, A. S.: A study of the fate of nerve homografts in man. Brit. J. Surg.34, 34 (1945).

  2. Dalton, A. J.: A chrome-osmilar fixative for electron microscopy. (Abstr.) Anat. Rev.121, 281 (1955).

  3. Das Gupta, T. K.: Mechanisms of rejection of peripheral nerve allografts. Surg. Gynec. Obstat.125, 1058–1068 (1967).

  4. Davis, L., Ruge, D.: Functional recovery following the use of homogenous nerve grafts Surgery27, 102–114 (1950).

  5. Ducker, B., Hayes, G. J.: Peripheral nerve grafts: experimental studies in the dog and chimpanzee to define homograft limitations. J. Neurosurg.32, 236–243 (1970).

  6. Gutmann, E., Sanders, F. K.: Functional recovery following nerve grafts and other types of nerve bridge. Brain65, 373–407 (1942).

  7. Gye, R. S., McLeod, J. G., Hargrave, J. C., Pollard, J. D., Loewenthal, J., Booth, G. C.: The use of immunosuppressive agents in human nerve grafting. Lancet1972 I, 647–650.

  8. Holmes, W., Young, J. Z.: Nerve regeneration after immediate and delayed suture. J. Anat. (Lond.)77, 63–96 (1942).

  9. Huber, G. C.: Transplantation of peripheral nerves. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat. (Chic.)II, 466–480 (1919).

  10. Ikeda, K.: Successful peripheral nerve homotransplantation by use of high voltage electron irradiation. Arch. Jap. Chir. (Kyoto)35, 679–705 (1966).

  11. Jacoby, W., Fahlsbusch, R., Mackert, B., Wieser, H.: Fortschritte in der Behandlung peripherer Nervenverletzungen. Fortschr. Med.89, 181–223 (1971).

  12. Lampert, P. W.: Demyelination in experimental allergic neuritis. Lab. Invest.20, 127–138 (1969).

  13. Marmor, L.: Regeneration of peripheral nerves by irradiated homografts. J. Bone Jt Surg. A46, 383–394 (1964).

  14. Marmor, L.: Peripheral nerve grafts. Clin. Neurosurg.17, 126–141 (1970).

  15. Nageotte, J.: Sur la greffe des tissus morts et en particulier serr la réparation des pertes de substance des nerts á l'aide de greffous nerveux conservés dans l'alcool. C. R. Soc. Biol. (Paris)1, 925–933 (1917).

  16. Pollard, J. D., Gye, R. S., McLeod, J. G.: An assessment of immunosuppressive agents in peripheral nerve transplantation. Surg. Gynec. Obstat.132, 839–842 (1971).

  17. Prineas, J.: Acute idiopathic polyneuritis. Lab. Invest.26, 132–147 (1972).

  18. Sanders, F. K., Young, J. Z.: The regeneration and reinnervation of grafted nerves. J. Anat. (Lond.)76, 143–164 (1942).

  19. Sanders, F. K., Young, J. Z.: The role of the peripheral stump in the control of fibre diameter in regenerating nerves. J. Physiol. (Lond.)103, 119–136 (1942).

  20. Seddon, H. J.: Nerve grafting. J. Bone Jt. Surg.45, 447–461 (1963).

  21. Schröder, J. M., Seiffert, K. E.: Die Feinstruktur der neuromatösen Neurotisation von Nerventransplanten. Virchows Arch., Abt. B Zellpath.5, 219–235 (1970).

  22. Thomas, P. K.: Changes in the endoneurial sheath of peripheral myelinated nerve fibres during Wallerian degeneration. J. Anat. (Lond.)98, 175–182 (1964).

  23. Waksman, B. H.: A comparative histopathological study of delayed hypersensitivity reactions. In CIBA Foundation Symposium on cellular aspects of Immunity. Ed. Wolstenholme and O'Connor. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1960.

  24. Williams, P. L., Williams, M. A., Kountz, A. G., Dempster, W. J.: Ultrastructural and haemodynamic studies in canine renal transplantation. J. Anat. (Lond.)95, 545–563 (1964).

  25. Wísniewski, H., Prineas, J., Raine, C. S.: An ultrastructural study of experimental demyelination. Lab. Invest.21, 105–118 (1969).

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pollard, J.D., Fitzpatrick, L. An ultrastructural comparison of peripheral nerve allografts and autografts. Acta Neuropathol 23, 152–165 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00685769

Download citation

Key words

  • Schwann Cell
  • “Activated” Macrophage
  • Neurolemmal Tube
  • Lymphocyte
  • Plasma Cell
  • Axonal Sprouts