Sleeve Technique is Superior to End-to-End Anastomosis and Cuff Technology in Mouse Model of Graft Vascular Disease.

Background: Graft vascular disease (GVD) is the main reason of late transplanted organ failure, which limits the long-term survival of patients. Murine aortic transplant is widely used in the field to understand the mechanisms leading to GVD. Currently, 3 major techniques, end-to-end anastomosis, sleeve suture and cuff technology, have been used to study the mechanism of GVD. However, which method is more suitable in mouse model of GVD? Herein, we compared these 3 surgical techniques in a mouse allograft arteriosclerosis model to determine the technique with the most appreciable outcomes.
Methods: Male C57Bl/6 (H-2b) and BALB/c (H-2d) mice were used for aorta transplantation with these 3 techniques. These 3 techniques were compared with regard to donor artery acquisition time, artery anastomosis time, overall surgical time, the amount of bleeding of each technique and the success rate of surgery. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and Masson staining were used to examine the pathological changes of grafted vessels. The protein expression of phospho-NF-κb P65 and PCNA were determined to validate laminar flow and proliferative capacity of neointima obtained from different surgical and control groups.
Results: Sleeve suture had a shorter vascular anastomosis time and total operation time than end-to-end anastomosis and cuff technique. Sleeve suture and cuff technique had significantly fewer amount of bleeding from the site of vascular anastomosis than end-to-end anastomosis. Moreover, sleeve suture had the highest success rate among these 3 techniques. There was no difference in the degree of graft stenosis and collagen deposition between these 3 techniques. In addition, there was no significant difference in the expression of phospho-NF-κb P65and PCNA between the experimental group.
Conclusions: Sleeve suture is superior to end-to-end anastomosis and cuff technique with regard to vascular grafting in the murine model.
(Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)