Beta Fulltext view is in preview — article structure may vary. Browse all articles
Contents
International Journal of Transplantation & Plastic Surgery Research Article 19 min read

Animal Models and Immunosuppressive Regimens in Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation – A Review

Yen Ling Wang A* and Yuen Yung Loh C*
* Corresponding author
ISSN: 2639-2127  10.23880/ijtps-16000106  Received: November 06, 2017  Published: November 20, 2017
 — views
 69 references
 8 tables
PDF
Keywords
Animal Models Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation (VCA)
Abstract

<p>Introduction: The development of vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) and its clinical need has led to the need for more animal models to study and perform the research required to further this specialty in terms of functional recovery and immunomodulatory improvements. Much of the animal models are reported in individual series in the literature but there has not been a systematic review as such of these models. Here we present a compilation of the animal models reported in the literature thus far in VCA. Material and methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed for any studies which involved the use of animal models in various aspects of VCA research. The models were organized according type of VCA transplant, whether they were orthotopic or heterotopic, immunosuppressive regimen each study used and investigation purpose. Results: 21 facial transplant models were reported, 3 abdominal wall transplants, 4 penile transplantations, 21 uterus transplantations, 12 hindlimb transplantations and 4 myocutaneous flap transplantation animal models were reported. Primates, swine, rats, mice, rabbits, sheep and dog animal models in VCA were also reported. Discussion: The review of existing animal models will allow further research to be focused in other areas of VCA where there is a current paucity of literature. The immunosuppressive regimens used in each animal model can also be reviewed to determine which regimen works in which type of animal model which will save time and resources for future research.</p>

Introduction

Vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) is an up and coming clinical modality in the realm of reconstructive microsurgery. Being able to replace tissues like for like en bloc is absolutely crucial and empowers the surgeon to achieve the most optimal outcome. However, the greater goal of VCA is the ability of the reconstructive surgeon to not only restore form but also function. Functional restoration could arguably be the epitome of reconstruction where the quality of lives are improved not only from external appearance but rather also allow the patients to make gainful recovery of lost body parts that are crucial to the activities of daily living. Trauma remains a significant burden in today’s society with many resulting in soft tissue defects. Other causes of soft tissue defects include congenital deformities and neoplastic conditions. Much of the previous methods for reconstruction include prosthesis or sequential flaps that obliterate and attempted to restore the form of a tissue defect. However, this is often inadequate and is lacking in function. VCA differs from solid organ transplantation (SOT) where tissues of varying antigenicity are transplanted en bloc. This results in issues of varying rejection rates. In particular, skin which is often a component of VCA transplants such as the hand and face has the highest antigenicity of all body tissue types. As such, rejection faced by skin component is high and the recipient or patient is dependent on a high constant level of immunosuppression. Skin contains dendritic cells such as Langerhans cells that have strong immunogenic properties and it has been shown that some of these cells of donor origin reside in the epidermis decades after the transplantation [1, 2]. Chronic immunosuppression itself carries deleterious effects in the long run where patients face opportunistic infections and an increased risk of malignancy from the decreased immunity that is usually present to prevent and take on a surveillance role. As such, one has to deliberate the actual pro and cons when deciding the perform VCA on a patient. The patient should also be able to finance a lifelong requirement of immunosuppressive drugs which are often costly and have a high dropout rate due to the side effects.

Much of the research at present in VCA is on better improving the safety profile of such procedures, especially with the need for the improvement in immunosuppressive regimens. By decreasing our reliance on immunosuppressive drugs, we increase the universal acceptability of such a procedure. The ultimate goal in transplant science would be to achieve allograft tolerance. Tolerance to an allograft is a phenomenon where the recipient body does not recognize the foreign antigens from the donor and hence will accept the graft. Immunosuppressive drugs can hence be reduced or even omitted. In order for this process to occur, immunological manipulation and re-education of the recipient’s immune system has to occur. Several strategies already show promise in this respect and will be discussed as part of this study. Varying tissue types also have varying levels of inducibility with regards to tolerance formation. In particular, due to the varying tissue types of differing antigenicity in VCA, tolerance is often difficult to achieve.

A Brief History of VCA

VCA has come a long way since its first conception back in AD 348. It has always been a goal of mankind to be able to replace like with like where allograft transplantation en bloc of a gangrenous leg of an elder church sacristan was performed by two brothers known as the miracle of Cosmas and Damian [3]. Previously known as composite tissue allotransplantation (CTA), VCA in the past started off with transplantation between identical twins which obviated the need for immunosuppression, which is the bane of VCA and is a focus of intense research at present. The first hand allotransplantation was performed in 1964 in Ecuador where a first generation drug regimen was provided. This included steroids and azathioprine initially. However, the hand allograft still was rejected 2 weeks later. Allografted tendons had been performed using non vascularized techniques to replace lost or nonfunctional upper extremity flexor tendons but end results were unacceptable due to the lack of viability of the grafts resulting in rupture as well With the limited knowledge in immunological manipulation and the adverse effects that happened, further VCA cases were put on hold. It was not till the discovery and development of cyclosporine A during kidney transplantation that it was applied to VCA in the 1980s where immunosuppression finally became more effective. The first successful hand transplant then was carried out in 1998 in France. However, the patient refused to adhere to the immunosuppressive regimen due to personal reasons and compliance issues and hence the arm was again amputated almost 3 years after surgery. The first vascularized tendon was performed by Guimberteau

where two allotransplantations of digital flexor tendon apparatus were collected from a living nonrelated donor and from a deceased donor [4]. The tendons were then revascularized using the recipient’s ulna vessels and ultimately received acceptable using multiple doses of cyclosporine A [5]. The first successful face transplant occurred in 2005 and since then, several countries have followed suit [6].

An Overview of Clinical VCA Cases to Date

Various specialized centers in the world with the capability and infrastructure in performing VCA should perform this. An important source of data is the International Registry on Hand and Composite Tissue Transplantation (IRHCTT), which is a voluntary registry that collects clinical information on VCAs. The most recent report of the IRHCTT was published in 2010 and provides follow-up data on 49 hand transplants in 33 patients. Thus far, there have been 89 hand transplants performed since 1998. The United States currently has the largest number of cases, followed by China and Poland.

Types of VCA Animal Models Reported

Face Transplant Models

A variety of animal models have been used in VCA experiments with the majority being orthotopic face transplants. The animal models were performed in animals such as primates, swine, sheep, canine, rabbit, rats and mice. Different compositions of face allograft comprising of bone, nerve and soft tissue in each animal model have been reported in the literature which has varying levels of antigenicity. As such, each report has used varying types of immunosuppression, which is also dependent on the response of each animal type and to the type of immunosuppressive drug. The transplantation of each allograft can be considered orthotopic if the graft replaces the original site of the donor i.e. the face, or heterotopic if the allograft is placed in a distant site different from the original area. Orthotopic transplants in these animal models are mostly for assessing not only the rejection process but also the functional restoration of the allograft. Heterotopic allografts, however, are used more for assessing the degree of rejection but normally do not carry an assessment of functional recovery. In a primate model, heterotopic transfer of a facial transplant including the mandible were transferred from MHC mismatched M Fascicularis monkeys. Anti- thymocyte globulin (ATG) was used as an induction regimen with Tacrolimus and Rapamycin in combination as a maintenance regimen. Two reports using swine and sheep models were used with facial allografts including bone. However, no immunosuppressions was used in these models and were more for the surgical technique of producing such models. Four canine models were used in mismatched donors to beagle dog recipients. All reports were orthotopic and involved a hemifacial transplantation. With these reports, 2 reports utilized ciclosporin and steroids as maintenance immunosuppression. 2 other reports used tacrolimus as maintenance immunosuppression and with one report using tacrolimus only for 7 days. One report in a rabbit model used a face and scalp transplantation model with no immunosuppression. 11 rat animal models for face transplant were reported in the literature. 9 of the reports were allografts and 2 were syngeneic. 10 reports were orthotopically transferred and 1 with heterogenic transplantation. Various face transplant components were reported ranging from ear, scalp, face, mystacial pad or mandible with tongue transplantation. A combination of ciclosporin A or tacrolimus was used in these animal models. 4 of these reports had nerve coaptation which looked at the functional recovery in allograft especially using mystacial pad transplantation. 2 reports of murine orthotopic face transplant were reported with either a hemiface or ear allograft. No immunosuppressive regimens were used in these reports with more focus on the surgical technique of transferring an ear or hemiface. The information is presented in the table 1.

Allo-transplantationApproachGraftRegimenReference
ATG (10 to 20 mg/kg/d) induction
reMismatched donor tois
with Tacrolimus (0.2 to 0.1 mg/kg/d)
Primatecipient M. FascicularHeterotopicMandibular OMC[7]
and Rapamycin (0.05 incresased to 0.2
monkey
mg/kg/d) maintenance.
Le-Fort-based
SwinePig autotransplantOrthotopicNo immunosuppression[8]
maxilloface

Table 1: Abdominal wall animal models. ALS: Antilymphocyte serum; ADSC: Adipose-derived stem cell

  • Sheep
  • N/A
  • N/A
  • Hemifacial and auricle
  • N/A
  • [9]
  • Canine
  • Mongrel to Beagle dog Orthotopic
  • Hemiface and
  • CSA (6-18 mg/kg/d) and steroid methylprednisolone (4-8 mg/kg/d).
  • [10] scalp
  • Canine
  • Mismatched donor to recipient Beagle dog
  • Orthotopic
  • Hemiface and scalp
  • Tacrolimus 2 mg/kg/d for 7 days.
  • [11]
  • Canine
  • Mismatched donor to recipient Beagle dog
  • Orthotopic
  • Hemiface
  • CSA (4 mg/kg/d)
  • [12]
  • Canine
  • Mismatched donor to recipient Beagle dog
  • Orthotopic
  • Mandibular hemijoint
  • Tacrolimus 1 mg/kg/d maintenance.
  • [13]
  • Rabbit
  • NZB to NZW
  • Orthotopic
  • Facial and scalp
  • No immunosuppression
  • [14]
  • CSA 16 mg/kg on POD 1-14, 13 mg/kg
  • Rat
  • BN to LEW
  • Orthotopic
  • Mystacial pad on POD 15-80, then 10 mg/kg maintenance.
  • Rat
  • BN to LEW
  • Orthotopic
  • Face and scalp
  • CSA 16 mg/kg/day, tapered to 2mg/kg in 4 weeks and maintained.
  • [16]
  • Hemiface with
  • Rat
  • LEW Syngeneic
  • Heterotopic mandible and
  • Tongue
  • CSA 16 mg/kg/d for
  • 2 wks and tapered to 8 mg/kg/d for 2
  • Rat
  • BN to LEW
  • Orthotopic
  • Auricle wks.
  • Rat
  • BN to LEW
  • Orthotopic
  • Hemifacial with mystacial region
  • Tacrolimus 8 mg/kg/d, tapered to 2
  • Rat
  • BN to Wistar
  • Orthotopic
  • Hemiface
  • CSA 16 mg/kg/d for 7 days, tapered to
  • CSA 16 mg/kg/d in first week, tapered
  • Rat
  • BN to LEW
  • Orthotopic
  • Auricle to 8 mg/kg/d and maintained for 2 wks, then 4 mg/kg maintained.
  • Rat
  • LEW Syngeneic
  • Orthotopic
  • Ear
  • No immunosuppression
  • [22]
  • Tacrolimus 6 mg/kg/d in first wk, tapered to 4 mg/kg/d in second wk,
  • Rat
  • Lew-BN to Wistar-Lew Orthotopic
  • Mystacial pad then 2 mg/kg/d maintained.
  • CSA 16 mg/kg/d in first wk, tapered to
  • Rat
  • Lew-BN to LEW
  • Orthotopic Hemiface with ear
  • 2 mg/kg/d over 4 wks and and scalp maintained.
  • Orthotopic
  • CSA 8 mg/kg on POD 1–2, 6 mg/kg on
  • Hemiface and
  • Rat
  • BN to LEW and
  • Heterotopic
  • POD 3–6, 4 mg/kg on POD 7–30, 2 scalp mg/kg on POD 31–42.
  • Murine
  • BALB/c to B6
  • Orthotopic
  • Myocutaneous hemiface
  • No immunosuppression
  • [26]
  • Murine
  • BALB/c to B6
  • Orthotopic
  • Ear
  • No immunosuppression
  • [27]

Table 2: Facial animal models.

Abdominal wall transplantation comprising of various tissue types also constitutes a vascularized composite allotransplantation model. All reported models thus far allograft transplanted. Anti-lymphocyte serum was used in 2 of the reports for induction therapy. Two reports utilized ciclosporin and one in combination with adipocyte derived stem cells intravenously. The models do not include all nerve anastomoses and mixed chimerism all at once. The information is presented in the table 2.

Allo-
ApproachGraftRegimenReference
transplantation
ALS 2.5 mg induction, each CSA 16, 10
RatBN to LEWOrthotopicHemi-abdominal[28]
and 5 mg/kg/d for 10 days.
RatBN to LEWOrthotopicTotal abdominal wallTacrolimus 0.5 mg/kg/d maintained.[29]
Orthotopic andHemi-abdominal withfALS 2.5 mg induction, CSA 16 mg/kg/d).
RatBN to LEW[30]
Heterotopichindlimbor 10 days and 3 doses of ADSC (2x106

Table 3: Abdominal wall animal models. ALS: Antilymphocyte serum; ADSC: Adipose-derived stem cell

Penile Transplantation Models

Penile allograft transplantation models have been described in 4 articles, all of which have been performed in rats. 2 studies were syngeneic rats, one of which was orthotopic and one heterotopic. These studies were focused on the surgical model and being syngeneic grafts, no immunosuppression was used. Anastomosis of the penile artery and vein was key in each model and ensuring the conduit of the urethra was restored. The other two studies used allografts and heterotopically transplanted penile grafts. One of the studies used tacrolimus and the other ciclosporin A. The information is presented in the table 3.

Allo-
ApproachGraftRegimenReference
transplantation
SD19
RatOriginal rgionPenisNo immunosuppression[31]
autotransplant
SD19Transferred to groin
RatPenisNo immunosuppression[32]
autotransplantregion
RatBN to LEWHeterotopicPenisTacrolimus 0.6 mg/kg/d maintained.[33]
CSA 16 mg/kg/d tapered to 2 mg/kg/d in 4 wks,
RatLew-BN to LEWHeterotopicPenis[34]
then maintained.

Table 4: Penile animal models. SD 19: Sprague-Dawely rats.

Uterus Transplantation Models

Uterus transplantation has been touted as a method of restoring fertility but functionally must perform as required. 3 articles report uterus transplantations in primates, 7 in sheep, 2 in rabbits, 6 in rats and 3 in murine models. The function of the transplanted uterus was tested in rabbits, rats and mice which were successful in three of the studies. In primate uterus transplantation, various types of immunosuppressive regimens were used including tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and methylprednisolone as maintenance regimes. Another protocol utilized ATG as an induction agent followed by tacrolimus and corticosteroids as maintenance. The information is presented in the table 4.

Allo-transplantationApproachGraftRegimenReference
M. Fascicularis
PrimatemonkeyUterusNo immunosuppression[35]
autotransplant
Tacrolimus 0.3 mg/kg/d, MMF 20-10
Mismatched M.
PrimateOrthotopicUterusmg/kg/d, and methylprednisolone 10-[36]
Fascicularis monkey
2 mg/d maintained.

Table 5: Myofasciocutaneous Animal Models. 1. TBI: Total body irradiation; CD3-IT: CD3-Immunotoxin 2. HCT: Hematopoietic cell tra

ATG 10 mg/kg induction, followed by

  • Primate
  • Mismatched olive baboons
  • Orthotopic
  • Uterus
  • Sheep
  • Swedish wool sheep autotransplant
  • Orthotopic
  • Uterus
  • No immunosuppression
  • [38]
  • Sheep
  • Sheep autotransplant
  • Uterus
  • No immunosuppression
  • [39]
  • Sheep
  • Sheep autotransplant
  • Orthotopic
  • Uterus
  • No immunosuppression
  • Sheep
  • Mismatched sheep
  • Heterotopic
  • Whole uterus
  • No immunosuppression
  • [40]
  • Sheep
  • Mismatched Romney
  • Marsh sheep
  • Orthotopic
  • Uterus
  • CSA 2-5 mg/kg/d maintained and
  • Sheep
  • Mismatched sheep
  • Orthotopic
  • Uterus
  • Sheep
  • Mismatched
  • Limousine sheep
  • Orthotopic
  • Uterus
  • Rabbit
  • NZW allotransplant
  • Orthotopic
  • Uterus
  • Rabbit
  • Mismatched NZW
  • Orthotopic
  • Uterus
  • Tacrolimus 500 μg twice daily postoperatively. Embryo transfer.
  • [44]
  • Rat
  • LEW Syngeneic
  • Heterotopic
  • Uterus
  • No immunosuppression
  • [45]
  • Rat
  • LEW Syngeneic
  • Orthotopic
  • Uterus
  • No immunosuppression
  • [46]
  • Rat
  • BN to DA
  • Heterotopic Whole uterus and
  • Rat
  • BN to LEW
  • Orthotopic
  • Uterus
  • CSA 10 mg/kg/d maintained.
  • [48]
  • Rat
  • BN to LEW
  • Orthotopic
  • Uterus
  • Tacrolimus 0.5 mg/kg/d pump
  • Rat
  • Virgin Dark Agouti to virgin LEW.
  • Orthotopic
  • Uterus
  • F1-hybrids of inbred
  • Heterotopic
  • Right uterine horn and the cervix
  • Murine female C57BL/6 X
  • CBA/ca Syngeneic
  • Murine
  • B6 Syngeneic
  • Orthotopic
  • Ovarian
  • No immunosuppression
  • [52]
  • Murine F1-hybrids of C57BL/6
  • X CBA/ca to B6
  • Heterotopic Right uterine horn

Table 6: Uterus Animal Models.

Hindlimb Transplantation Models

Hindlimb transplantation has been a model to mimic hand transplantation where components of bone, muscle, nerve, fat and skin are included in a hindlimb. The animal models demonstrated here to explore the feasibility of modulating the immunosuppressive regimen in improving the viability of hindlimb transplants. When transplanted orthotopically, they also serve as a model to assess the functional recovery of the hindlimb when used for gait. The nerve recovery is crucial in improving the function of the transplanted allograft. The information is presented in the table 5.

  • Allo-transplantation
  • Approach
  • Graft
  • Regimen
  • Reference
  • Mismatched donor to recipient M. Fascicularis
  • Sensate osteomyocutaneous
  • Primate
  • Orthotopic monkey radial forearm flap
  • Swine White pig autotransplant Heterotopic
  • Whole forelimb
  • No immunosuppression
  • [55]
  • Swine
  • Mismatched newborn swine
  • Heterotopic
  • Newborn knee
  • No immunosuppression
  • [56]
  • Skeletal graft consisting of the tibia, fibula, knee joint, distal femur, and
  • Swine
  • Mismatched donor to recipient pigs
  • Heterotopic surrounding muscles
  • Swine
  • Mismatched donor to recipient pigs
  • Orthotopic
  • Osteomyocutaneous
  • Swine
  • Mismatched donor to recipient pigs
  • Orthotopic
  • Radial forelimb osteomyocutaneous flap
  • No immunosuppression
  • [59]
  • Rabbit
  • NZW autotransplant
  • Orthotopic
  • Whole knee joint
  • No immunosuppression
  • [60]
  • Cremaster muscle and pubic bone
  • Rat
  • N/A
  • N/A flap
  • Rat
  • ACI to WF
  • Heterotopic
  • Hindlimb osteomyocutaneous
  • Rat
  • WF to LEW
  • Orthotopic
  • Simultaneous dual-
  • Rat
  • BN to LEW
  • Orthotopic
  • Vascularized elbow
  • Rat
  • Lewis-BN to LEW
  • Orthotopic
  • IBOMC flap

Table 7: Hindlimb Animal Models.

Soft tissue alone with varying tissue types including fat, connective tissue and muscle are collective known as myocutaneous flaps in free flap transplantation. The varying antigenicity of the tissue types is what constitutes the unique response directed against vascularized immunosuppression as a model. One study utilized a combination of heart transplantation with an abdominal musculocutaneous flap. The combination of two models is particularly interesting which confers a high degree of morbidity in the animal. In the rat study, maintenance was carried out with ciclosporin A after the inclusion of the heart transplantation. The information is presented in the table 6.

Allo-transplantationApproachGraftRegimenReference
Mismatched donor toGracilis
Swinerecipient MGHHeterotopicmyocutaneousNo immunosuppression[66]
Miniature Swineflap
TBI 100 cGy and CD3-IT
Mismatched donor toconditioning prior to 3 doses of
Fasciocutaneous
Swinerecipient MGHHeterotopicHCT 15x109 cells/kg with CSA[67]
flap
Miniature Swine(target trough 400-800 ng/mL)
for 45 days.
BeaglesTransferred toMyocutanenous
CanineNo immunosuppression[68]
autotransplantgroin regionrectus flap
HeterotopicHeart and
WKY heart and LEWheart andabdominalCSA 5 mg/kg/d every other day
Rat[69]
VCA to F344orthotopicmusculocutaneousfor 10 days after heart transplant.
VCAflap

Table 8: Myofasciocutaneous Animal Models. 1. TBI: Total body irradiation; CD3-IT: CD3-Immunotoxin 2. HCT: Hematopoietic cell tra

Discussion

The summary of the findings in this article demonstrates the various VCA models reported in the literature before. In order to carry our further experiments and determine the future of allotransplantation, animal models summarized in this article will hopefully shed light on the future directions for research and where further focus can be emphasized. Experimental animal surgical models can be difficult to perform and such research in VCA should be best collaborated with both clinicians and surgeons who can perform the difficult animal models, as well as basic scientists to further developments in this specialty. Many of the immunosuppressive regimens used thus far involve an induction agent such as anti-thymocyte globulin or total body radiation which preconditions the host’s immune system in preparation for a chance of engraftment of donor antigens. In particular, the phenomenon of chimerism is particularly seen in VCA research where the transfer of vascularized bone marrow, in long bones in particular, mediates a constant exchange of cells such as regulatory T cells which serve to protect the allograft. They mediate and protect the allograft from being attacked by host defense mechanisms which would destroy the graft otherwise.

References

  1. Murray JE (1971) Organ transplantation (skin, kidney, heart) and the plastic surgeon. Plast Reconstr Surg 47(5): 425-431.
  2. Thaunat O, Badet L, Dubois V, Kanitakis J, Petruzzo P, et al. (2015) Immunopathology of rejection: do the rules of solid organ apply to vascularized composite allotransplantation? Curr Opin Organ Transplant 20(6): 596-601.
  3. Kahan BD (1983) Cosmas and Damian revisited. Transplant Proc 15(4): 2211-2216.
  4. Guimberteau JC, Baudet J, Panconi B, Boileau R, Potaux L (1992) Human allotransplant of a digital flexion system vascularized on the ulnar pedicle: a preliminary report and 1-year follow-up of two cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 89(6): 1135-1147.
  5. Petit F, Minns AB, Dubernard JM, Hettiaratchy S, Lee WP (2003) Composite tissue allotransplantation and reconstructive surgery: first clinical applications. Ann Surg 237(1): 19-25.
  6. Dubernard JM, Lengelé B, Morelon E, Testelin S, Badet L, et al. (2007) Outcomes 18 months after the first human partial face transplantation. N Engl J Med 357(24): 2451-2460.
  7. Silverman RP, Banks ND, Detolla LJ, Shipley ST, Panda A, et al. (2008) A heterotopic primate model for facial composite tissue transplantation. Ann Plast Surg 60(2): 209-216.
  8. Santiago GF, Susarla SM, Al Rakan M, Coon D, Rada EM, et al. (2014) Establishing cephalometric landmarks for the translational study of Le Fort- based facial transplantation in Swine: enhanced applications using computer-assisted surgery and custom cutting guides. Plast Reconstr Surg 133(5): 1138-1151.
  9. Uygur S, Ozturk C, Kwiecien G, Djohan R, Siemionow M (2014) Sheep hemifacial and auricular transplantation models: an anatomic study. Ann Plast Surg 72(4): 469-474.
  10. Shengwu Z, Qingfeng L, Hao J, Banich J, Kaiding F, et al. (2007) Developing a canine model of composite facial/scalp allograft transplantation. Ann Plast Surg 59(2): 185-194.
  11. Lee KM, Eun SC (2014) Experimental canine facial transplantation. Transplant Proc 46(4): 1208-1211.
  12. Eduardo Bermu Dez L, Santamaria A, Romero T, Caldero DF (2002) Experimental model of facial transplant. Plast Reconstr Surg 110(5): 1374-1375.
  13. Hohnke C, Russavage JM, Subbotin V, Llull R, Starzl TE, et al. (1997) Vascularized composite tissue mandibular transplantation in dogs. Transplant Proc 29(1-2): 995.
  14. Baek RM, Eun SC, Heo CY, Chang H (2010) Experimental facial transplantation surgery. J Craniofac Surg 21(3): 648-651.
  15. Washington KM, Solari MG, Sacks JM, Horibe EK, Unadkat JV, et al. (2009) A model for functional recovery and cortical reintegration after hemifacial composite tissue allotransplantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 123(2): 26S-33S.
  16. Ulusal BG, Ulusal AE, Ozmen S, Zins JE, Siemionow MZ (2003) A new composite facial and scalp transplantation model in rats. Plast Reconstr Surg 112(5): 1302-1311.
  17. Kulahci Y, Siemionow M (2010) A new composite hemiface/mandible/tongue transplantation model in rats. Ann Plast Surg 64(1): 114-121.
  18. Ulusal AE, Ulusal BG, Hung LM, Wei FC (2005) Establishing a composite auricle allotransplantation model in rats: introduction to transplantation of facial subunits. Plast Reconstr Surg 116(3): 811-817.
  19. Landin L, Cavadas PC, Gonzalez E, Rodriguez JC, Caballero A (2008) Functional outcome after facial allograft transplantation in rats. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 61(9): 1034-1043.
  20. Climov M, Maciuceanu Zarnescu MB, Stefanescu A, Zamfirescu D, Lascar I (2013) Learning curve in hemifacial transplantation in rats. Chirurgia (Bucur) 108(2): 234-240.
  21. Ulusal BG, Ulusal AE, Wei FC (2009) Long-term outcomes of composite auricle as a neurosensorial facial subunit allotransplant. Ann Plast Surg 62(3): 311-316.
  22. Chiu DT, Ascherman JA, Patsis MC (1993) Rat ear transplantation: a feasibility study. J Reconstr Microsurg 9(1): 33-38.
  23. Landin L, Cavadas PC, Gonzalez E, Caballero-Hidalgo A, Rodriguez-Perez JC (2009) Sensorimotor recovery after partial facial (mystacial pad) transplantation in rats. Ann Plast Surg 63(4): 428-435.
  24. Demir Y, Ozmen S, Klimczak A, Mukherjee AL, Siemionow M (2004) Tolerance induction in composite facial allograft transplantation in the rat model. Plast Reconstr Surg 114(7): 1790-1801.
  25. Ramirez AE, Lao WW, Wang YL, Cheng HY, Wei FC (2015) Two-stage face transplantation: a new concept in vascularized composite allotransplantation. Microsurgery 35(3): 218-226.
  26. Sucher R, Lin CH, Oberhuber R, Kern B, Zheng XX, et al. (2012) Hemiface allotransplantation in the mouse. Plast Reconstr Surg 129(4): 867-870.
  27. Jiang J, Humar A, Gracia B, Zhong R (1998) Surgical technique for vascularized ear transplantation in mice. Microsurgery 18(1): 42-46.
  28. Lao WW, Wang YL, Ramirez AE, Cheng HY, Wei FC (2014) A new rat model for orthotopic abdominal wall allotransplantation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2(4): e136.
  29. Quigley MA, Fletcher DR, Zhang W, Nguyen VT (2013) Development of a reliable model of total abdominal wall transplantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(4): 988-994.
  30. Ramirez AE, Hui-Yun Cheng, William W Lao, Yen-Ling Wang, Chih-Jen Wen, et al. (2014) A novel rat full- thickness hemi-abdominal wall/hindlimb osteomyocutaneous combined flap: influence of allograft mass and vascularized bone marrow content on vascularized composite allograft survival. Transpl Int 27(9): 977-986.
  31. Seyam RM, Kattan SA, Assad LW, El-Sayed RM, Almohanna FH (2013) Penile autotransplantation in rats: An animal model. Urol Ann 5(4): 255-258.
  32. Akyurek M, Ozkan O, Safak T, Ozgentas HE, Dunn RM (2005) The penile flap in the rat: description and autotransplantation. Ann Plast Surg 55(1): 94-100.
  33. Koga H, Yamataka A, Wang K, Kato Y, Lane GJ, et al. (2003) Experimental allogenic penile transplantation. J Pediatr Surg 38(12): 1802-1805.
  34. Sonmez E, Nasir S, Siemionow M (2009) Penis allotransplantation model in the rat. Ann Plast Surg 62(3): 304-310.
  35. Kisu I, Banno K, Mihara M, Hara H, Umene K, et al. (2015) A surgical technique using the ovarian vein in non-human primate models of potential living-donor surgery of uterus transplantation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 94(9): 942-948.
  36. Kisu I, Mihara M, Banno K, Hara H, Masugi Y, et al. (2014) Uterus allotransplantation in cynomolgus macaque: a preliminary experience with non-human primate models. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 40(4): 907- 918.
  37. Johannesson L, Enskog A, Mölne J, Diaz-Garcia C, Hanafy A, et al. (2013) Preclinical report on allogeneic uterus transplantation in non-human primates. Hum Reprod 28(1): 189-198.
  38. Wranning CA, Dahm-Kähler P, Mölne J, Nilsson UA, Enskog A, et al. (2008) Transplantation of the uterus in the sheep: oxidative stress and reperfusion injury after short-time cold storage. Fertil Steril 90(3): 817- 826.
  39. Saso S, Petts G, David AL, Thum MY, Chatterjee J, et al. (2015) Achieving an early pregnancy following allogeneic uterine transplantation in a rabbit model. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 185: 164-169.
  40. Gonzalez-Pinto IM, Tryphonopoulos P, Avison DL, Nishida S, Tekin A, et al. (2013) Uterus transplantation model in sheep with heterotopic whole graft and aorta and cava anastomoses. Transplant Proc 45(5): 1802-1804.
  41. Ramirez ER, Ramirez DK, Pillari VT, Vasquez H, Ramirez HA (2008) Modified uterine transplant procedure in the sheep model. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3): 311-314.
  42. Wei L, Xue T, Yang H, Zhao GY, Zhang G, et al. (2013) Modified uterine allotransplantation and immunosuppression procedure in the sheep model. PLoS One 8(11): e81300.
  43. Gauthier T, Bertin F, Fourcade L, Maubon A, Saint Marcoux F, et al. (2011) Uterine allotransplantation in ewes using an aortocava patch. Hum Reprod 26(11): 3028-3036.
  44. Saso S, Hurst S, Chatterjee J, Kuzmin E, Thum Y, et al. (2014) Test of long-term uterine survival after allogeneic transplantation in rabbits. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 40(3): 754-762.
  45. Wranning CA, Akhi SN, Kurlberg G, Brannstrom M (2008) Uterus transplantation in the rat: model development, surgical learning and morphological evaluation of healing. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 87(11): 1239-1247.
  46. Diaz-Garcia C, Akhi SN, Martinez-Varea A, Brannstrom M (2013) The effect of warm ischemia at uterus transplantation in a rat model. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92(2): 152-159.
  47. Jiga LP, Lupu CM, Zoica BS, Ionac M (2003) Experimental model of heterotopic uterus transplantation in the laboratory rat. Microsurgery 23(3): 246-250.
  48. Groth K, Akhi SN, Molne J, Wranning CA, Brannstrom M (2012) Effects of immunosuppression by cyclosporine A on allogenic uterine transplant in the rat. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 163(1): 97-103.
  49. Akhi SN, Diaz-Garcia C, El-Akouri RR, Wranning CA, Mölne J (2013) Uterine rejection after allogeneic uterus transplantation in the rat is effectively suppressed by tacrolimus. Fertil Steril 99(3): 862- 870.
  50. Diaz-Garcia C, Akhi SN, Wallin A, Pellicer A, Brannstrom M (2010) First report on fertility after allogeneic uterus transplantation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89(11): 1491-1494.
  51. Racho El-Akouri R, Kurlberg G, Dindelegan G, Mölne J, Wallin A, et al. (2002) Heterotopic uterine transplantation by vascular anastomosis in the mouse. J Endocrinol 174(2): 157-166.
  52. Parkening TA, Collins TJ, Elder FF (1985) Orthotopic ovarian transplantations in young and aged C57BL/6J mice. Biol Reprod 32(5): 989-997.
  53. Wranning CA, El-Akouri RR, Groth K, Mölne J, Parra AK, et al. (2007) Rejection of the transplanted uterus is suppressed by cyclosporine A in a semi-allogeneic mouse model. Hum Reprod 22(2): 372-379.
  54. Cendales LC, Xu H, Bacher J, Eckhaus MA, Kleiner DE, et al. (2005) Composite tissue allotransplantation: development of a preclinical model in nonhuman primates. Transplantation 80(10): 1447-1454.
  55. Kiermeir DM, Meoli M, Müller S, Abderhalden S, Vögelin E, et al. (2013) Evaluation of a porcine whole- limb heterotopic autotransplantation model. Microsurgery 33(2): 141-147.
  56. Solla F, Hua Pan, Dorothée Watrelot, Olivia Leveneur, Jean-Michel Dubernard, et al. (2013) Composite tissue allotransplantation in newborns: a swine model. J Surg Res 179(1): e235-e243.
  57. Kuo YR, Sacks JM, Lee WP, Wu WS, Kueh NS, et al. (2006) Porcine heterotopic composite tissue allograft transplantation using a large animal model for preclinical studies. Chang Gung Med J 29(3): 268-274.
  58. Ren X, Shirbacheh MV, Ustüner ET, Zdichavsky M, Edelstein J, et al. (2000) Osteomyocutaneous flap as a preclinical composite tissue allograft: swine model. Microsurgery 20(3): 143-149.
  59. Ustuner ET, Majzoub RK, Ren X, Edelstein J, Maldonado C, et al. (2000) Swine composite tissue allotransplant model for preclinical hand transplant studies. Microsurgery 20(8): 400-406.
  60. Kremer T, Giusti G, Friedrich PF, Willems W, Bishop AT, et al. (2012) Knee joint transplantation combined with surgical angiogenesis in rabbits--a new experimental model. Microsurgery 32(2): 118-127.
  61. Ogur S, Cinar C, Ozturk C, Yildirim I (2008) A new composite flap model in the rat: combined cremaster muscle and pubic bone flap. Ann Plast Surg 60(6): 692-697.
  62. Adamson LA, Huang WC, Breidenbach WC, Rahhal D, Xu H, et al. (2007) A modified model of hindlimb osteomyocutaneous flap for the study of tolerance to composite tissue allografts. Microsurgery 27(7): 630- 636.
  63. Sacks JM, Kuo YR, Horibe EK, Hautz T, Mohan K, et al. (2012) An optimized dual-surgeon simultaneous orthotopic hind-limb allotransplantation model in rats. J Reconstr Microsurg 28(1): 69-75.
  64. Tang J, Zhu H, Luo X, Li Q, Levin LS, et al. (2015) A vascularized elbow allotransplantation model in the rat. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(5): 779-786.
  65. Nasir S, Klimczak A, Sonmez E, Bozkurt M, Gibson S, et al. (2010) New composite tissue allograft model of vascularized bone marrow transplant: the iliac osteomyocutaneous flap. Transpl Int 23(1): 90-100.
  66. Leto Barone AA, Leonard DA, Torabi R, Mallard C, Glor T, et al. (2013) The gracilis myocutaneous free flap in swine: an advantageous preclinical model for vascularized composite allograft transplantation research. Microsurgery 33(1): 51-55.
  67. Leonard DA, Kurtz JM, Mallard C, Albritton A, Duran- Struuck R, et al. (2014) Vascularized composite allograft tolerance across MHC barriers in a large animal model. Am J Transplant 14(2): 343-355.
  68. Mathes DW, Noland M, Graves S, Schlenker R, Miwongtum T, et al. (2010) A preclinical canine model for composite tissue transplantation. J Reconstr Microsurg 26(3): 201-207.
  69. Yang J, Erdmann D, Chang JC, Komatsu I, Zhang Y, et al. (2010) A model of sequential heart and composite tissue allotransplant in rats. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(1): 80-86.
More from this journal

Cite this article

BibTeX
APA
RIS
@article{yen2017,
  title   = {Animal Models and Immunosuppressive Regimens in Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation – A Review},
  author  = {Yen Ling Wang A* and Yuen Yung Loh C},
  journal = {International Journal of Transplantation & Plastic Surgery},
  year    = {2017},
  volume  = {1},
  number  = {1},
  doi     = {10.23880/ijtps-16000106}
}
Yen Ling Wang A* and Yuen Yung Loh C (2017). Animal Models and Immunosuppressive Regimens in Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation – A Review. International Journal of Transplantation & Plastic Surgery, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.23880/ijtps-16000106
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Animal Models and Immunosuppressive Regimens in Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation – A Review
AU  - Yen Ling Wang A* and Yuen Yung Loh C
JO  - International Journal of Transplantation & Plastic Surgery
PY  - 2017
VL  - 1
IS  - 1
DO  - 10.23880/ijtps-16000106
ER  -