In order to compare the immunogenecity and biological properties of homologous tendon grafts after treatment from different methods of freezing, tendons from chickens received repeated freezing-thawing treatment or ultra-low-temperature treatment, and then, the post-treatment tendons were preserved in liquid nitrogen for 3 months before transplantation. The autogenous tendon transplantation was served as the control. It was found that in the group of repeated freezing-thawing treated tendons, the tendon cells all died and while in the ultra-low temperature treated tendons the active rate of tendon cells was 92.5% +/- 3.4%, and the histological observation showed that transplantation of frozen tendons would result in extensive infiltration of inflammatory cells in the grafted tendons and the peritendinous adhesion was serious than that of the autografts. The active flexion function, hydroxyproline levels and the biomechanical analysis showed no significant differences between the repeated freezing-thawing treated homografts and the ultra-low-temperature treated homografts, and that the autografts was definitely superior to the homografts. The conclusions were: (1) Transplantation of the homologous tendons from the two different methods of freezing could receive considerable success and there was no significant difference between them; (2) Transplantation of frozen homologous tendon graft might give successful result which was probably due to the preservation of the cellular activity of the tendon cells following freezing treatment and elimination of the antigen presenting cells in the tendon as well, and (3) Although the cellular components of the tendon were damaged and the antigenicity of the tendon was lowered, it did not necessarily mean that homologous tendon graft would always be successful in transplantation.
Citation: Tang Linjun,Cheng Guoliang,Fang Guangrong et al.. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF HOMOGRAFT OF REPEATED FREEZINGTHAWING TREATED AND ULTRALOWTEMPERATURE TREATED TENDON. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 1998, 12(4): 241-245. doi: Copy