Bilgehan Solmaz1,2, Ali Şahin1, Taha Keleştemur3,4, Ertuğrul Kiliç3,4, Erkan Kaptanoğlu5. 1. Department of Neurological Sciences, Marmara University, İstanbul, Turkey 2. Department of Neurosurgery, İstanbul Education Research Hospital, Ministry of Health, İstanbul, Turkey 3. Department of Physiology, İstanbul Medipol University, İstanbul, Turkey 4. Regenerative and Restorative Medical Research Center, İstanbul Medipol Universtiy, İstanbul, Turkey 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Başkent University, İstanbul, Turkey
Abstract
Background/aim: The management of dura-related complications, such as the repairment of dural tears and reconstruction of large dural defects, remain the most challenging subjects of neurosurgery. Numerous surgical techniques and synthetic or autologous adjuvant materials have emerged as an adjunct to primary dural closure, which may result in further complications or side effects. Therefore, the subcutaneous autologous free adipose tissue graft has been recommended for the protection of the central nervous system and repairment of the meninges. In addition, human adipose tissue is also a source of multipotent stem cells. However, epidural adipose tissue seems more promising than subcutaneous because of the close location and intercellular communication with the spinal cord. Herein, it was aimed to define differentiation capability of both subcutaneous and epidural adipose tissue-derived stem cells (ASCs). Materials and methods: Human subcutaneous and epidural adipose tissue specimens were harvested from the primary incisional site and the lumbar epidural space during lumbar spinal surgery, and ASCs were isolated. Results: The results indicated that both types of ASCs expressed the cell surface markers, which are commonly expressed stem cells; however, epidural ASCs showed lower expression of CD90 than the subcutaneous ASCs. Moreover, it was demonstrated that the osteogenic and neurogenic differentiation capability of epidural adipose tissue-derived ASCs was more pronounced than that of the subcutaneous ASCs. Conclusion: Consequently, the impact of characterization of epidural ASCs will allow for a new understanding for dural as well as central nervous system healing and recovery after an injury. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Background/aim: The management of dura-related complications, such as the repairment of dural tears and reconstruction of large dural defects, remain the most challenging subjects of neurosurgery. Numerous surgical techniques and synthetic or autologous adjuvant materials have emerged as an adjunct to primary dural closure, which may result in further complications or side effects. Therefore, the subcutaneous autologous free adipose tissue graft has been recommended for the protection of the central nervous system and repairment of the meninges. In addition, human adipose tissue is also a source of multipotent stem cells. However, epidural adipose tissue seems more promising than subcutaneous because of the close location and intercellular communication with the spinal cord. Herein, it was aimed to define differentiation capability of both subcutaneous and epidural adipose tissue-derived stem cells (ASCs). Materials and methods: Human subcutaneous and epidural adipose tissue specimens were harvested from the primary incisional site and the lumbar epidural space during lumbar spinal surgery, and ASCs were isolated. Results: The results indicated that both types of ASCs expressed the cell surface markers, which are commonly expressed stem cells; however, epidural ASCs showed lower expression of CD90 than the subcutaneous ASCs. Moreover, it was demonstrated that the osteogenic and neurogenic differentiation capability of epidural adipose tissue-derived ASCs was more pronounced than that of the subcutaneous ASCs. Conclusion: Consequently, the impact of characterization of epidural ASCs will allow for a new understanding for dural as well as central nervous system healing and recovery after an injury. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors: F P Cammisa; F P Girardi; P K Sangani; H K Parvataneni; S Cadag; H S Sandhu Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2000-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Susan M Majka; Keith E Fox; John C Psilas; Karen M Helm; Christine R Childs; Alistaire S Acosta; Rachel C Janssen; Jacob E Friedman; Brian T Woessner; Theodore R Shade; Marileila Varella-Garcia; Dwight J Klemm Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Dario R Lemos; Benjamin Paylor; Chihkai Chang; Arthur Sampaio; T Michael Underhill; Fabio M V Rossi Journal: Stem Cells Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 6.277
Authors: Tamara Tchkonia; Thomas Thomou; Yi Zhu; Iordanes Karagiannides; Charalabos Pothoulakis; Michael D Jensen; James L Kirkland Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Daniela A Moraes; Tatiana T Sibov; Lorena F Pavon; Paula Q Alvim; Raphael S Bonadio; Jaqueline R Da Silva; Aline Pic-Taylor; Orlando A Toledo; Luciana C Marti; Ricardo B Azevedo; Daniela M Oliveira Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 6.832