Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2002; 18(2): 121-128
DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-19893
CLINICAL REVIEW

Copyright © 2002 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Secondary Transplantation Following a Period of Isografting: Experimental Study in Rats

Mehmet Oguz Yenidünya1 , Yang Dongyoung1 , Sibel Yenidünya2 , Mihaela Hriscu1 , Yasuyoshi Tosa1 , Tetsuji Uemura1 , Yoshiaki Hosaka1 , Toshio Morohoshi2
  • 1Department of Plastic Reconstructive Surgery Showa University School of Medicine Tokyo, Japan
  • 2First Department of Pathology Showa University School of Medicine Tokyo, Japan
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 January 2002 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The authors describe a study in which groin flaps from 20 Wistar rats were transplanted to another group of 20 Wistar rats and, after various time intervals, the groin flaps were re-transplanted back to the original animals. The goal of the first transfers was to preserve the flap in the second group of animals (isopreservation). During the isopreservation period, the second rat (the preserver) was treated with steroids or FK506 for immunosuppression. Thirty-three free groin flap transfers were performed between 40 rats. If possible, the same flap was transferred twice between two animals, one as an isograft, and other as an autograft following an isopreservation period in 13 pairs of animals. (A second transfer was not possible in seven pairs of animals.) The period for isopreservation varied between 2 days and 1 week. The survival of the flap was observed by visual inspection, laser Doppler flowmeter measurements, and was correlated with serial histopathologic examinations of skin and vessel biopsy specimens, including the anastomosis site. The severity of histopathologic signs that might be related to developing rejection was increased by the preservation time, and was more noticeable after the second transfer. The authors showed that successful secondary transplantation of the rat groin flap with a 1-week follow-up could be achieved, following isopreservation of at least up to 5 days.

KEYWORD

Secondary transplantation - isografting - rat model

REFERENCES

  • 1 Hierner R, Betz A M, Comtet J J, Berger A C. Decision making and results in subtotal and total lower leg amputations: reconstruction versus amputation.  Microsurgery . 1995;  16 830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Godina M, Bajec J, Baraga A. Salvage of the mutilated upper extremity with temporary ectopic implantation of the undamaged part.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1986;  78 295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Graf P, Groner R, Horl W. Temporary ectopic implantation for salvage of amputated digits.  Br J Plast Surg . 1996;  49 174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kayikçioglu A, Agaoglu G, Nasir S, Keçik A. Crossover replantation and fillet flap coverage of the stump after ectopic implantation: a case of bilateral leg amputation.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 2000;  106 868
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Razaboni R, Shaw W. Preservation of tissue for transplantation and replantation.  Clin Plast Surg . 1983;  10 211
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kaufman H H, Huchton J D, Patten B M. Limb preservation for reimplantation: a review.  Microsurgery . 1980;  2 36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ballantyne D L, Reid C A, Harper A D, Shaw W W. The effects of short term preservation on microvascular free groin flaps in rats.  Microsurgery . 1980;  2 101
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Smith A R, Alphen D B, Faithfull S, Fennema M. Limb preservation in replantation surgery.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1985;  75 227
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Werker P MN, Kon M, Green C. Survival characteristics of the epigastric free flap in DA rats.  Microsurgery . 1992;  13 67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Matloub H S, Housif N J, Sanger J R. Temporary ectopic implantation of an amputated penis.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1994;  93 408
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yousif N J, Dzwierzynski W W, Anderson R C. Complications and salvage of an ectopically replanted thumb.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1996;  97 637
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Mangus D J. Ectopic revascularization using the inferior epigastric system.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1987;  79 495
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Yenidünya M O, Yenidünya S. Initially alloperfused autograft: an experimental study with rat groin flap.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 2000;  105 648
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Batchelor J R, Welsh K I, Maynard A, Burgos H. Failure of long surviving, passively enhanced kidney allografts to provoke T-dependant alloimmunity.  J Exp Med . 1979;  150 455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Welsh K I, Batchelor J R, Maynard A, Burgos H. Failure of long surviving, passively enhanced kidney allografts to provoke T-dependent alloimmunity.  J Exp Med . 1979;  150 465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sugarbaker P H, McCullough C S, Deutsch H L. Retransplantation of murine skin allografts: assessment of treatment effects on the allograft in the absence of effects on the host.  J Immunol Methods . 1984;  72 361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Codner M A, Shuster B A, Steinman R M. Migration of donor leukocytes from limb allografts into host lymphoid tissues.  Ann Plast Surg . 1990;  25 353
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Johnson P C, Barker J H. Thrombosis and antithrombotic therapy in microvascular surgery.  Clin Plast Surg . 1992;  19 799
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Siemionow M, Kimori K, Lister G. Microcirculatory hemodynamics during the acute phase of free vascularized muscle allograft rejection.  Ann Plast Surg . 1998;  41 275
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Roberts I SD, Brenchley P EC. Mast cells: the forgotten cells of renal fibrosis.  J Clin Pathol . 2000;  53 858
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar