Literature DB >> 1449219

The hypoglossal-facial anastomosis as model of neuronal plasticity in the rat.

W F Neiss1, O Guntinas Lichius, D N Angelov, A Gunkel, E Stennert.   

Abstract

Hypoglossal-facial cross anastomosis (HFA) causes regeneration with change of function, as the axotomized hypoglossal motoneurons sprout into the facial plexus and reinnervate the mimic musculature. Following HFA, hypoglossal-hypoglossal single anastomosis (HHA) and resection of 8-10 mm peripheral hypoglossal nerve in 190 female adult Wistar rats, we compared the axon reactions in the hypoglossal nucleus during 1) regeneration with change of function, 2) regeneration with restoration of original function and 3) degeneration of the nucleus. Following postoperative survival times of 1-16 weeks we estimated the volume of the hypoglossal nucleus and counted the number of hypoglossal neurons with the physical disector on both sides of the brainstem. Additional sections of the same animals were reacted with anti-synaptophysin, anti-GFAP and the isolectin Griffonia simplicifolia I-B4 (GSA I-B4) as cytochemical markers for presynaptic boutons, activated astroglia and microglia. After HHA and HFA all hypoglossal neurons survive and the volume of the hypoglossal nucleus remains constant. Resection of the hypoglossal nerve leads to the loss of one third of the hypoglossal neurons and of one third of the volume of the hypoglossal nucleus within 16 weeks post operation. Hypoglossal-facial anastomosis and hypoglossal-hypoglossal anastomosis differ in postoperative swelling of the hypoglossal nucleus, microglia and astroglia activation and the duration of synaptic stripping. All differences are limited to the acute growth phase during regeneration. It is concluded that hypoglossal-facial anastomosis provides more stimulation and facilitates faster recovery of the hypoglossal nucleus than does hypoglossal-hypoglossal anastomosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1449219     DOI: 10.1016/s0940-9602(11)80266-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Anat        ISSN: 0940-9602            Impact factor:   2.698


  11 in total

1.  Manual stimulation of forearm muscles does not improve recovery of motor function after injury to a mixed peripheral nerve.

Authors:  N Sinis; O Guntinas-Lichius; A Irintchev; E Skouras; S Kuerten; S P Pavlov; H E Schaller; S A Dunlop; D N Angelov
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-10-23       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Synaptic plasticity in the facial nucleus in rats following infraorbital nerve manipulation after facial nerve injury.

Authors:  Wenyan Sun; Wenlin Feng; Haitao Lu; Shusheng Gong
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Non-invasive stimulation of the vibrissal pad improves recovery of whisking function after simultaneous lesion of the facial and infraorbital nerves in rats.

Authors:  H Bendella; S P Pavlov; M Grosheva; A Irintchev; S K Angelova; D Merkel; N Sinis; K Kaidoglou; E Skouras; S A Dunlop; Doychin N Angelov
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-04-28       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Facial Nerve Adherence in Vestibular Schwannomas: Classification and Radiological Predictors.

Authors:  Gustavo Simiano Jung; Guilherme Ramina Montibeller; Gabriel Schier de Fraga; Thais Dos Santos Rohde; Ricardo Ramina
Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base       Date:  2020-07-01

5.  Treatment With Nimodipine or FK506 After Facial Nerve Repair Neither Improves Accuracy of Reinnervation Nor Recovery of Mimetic Function in Rats.

Authors:  Mohammed Barham; Michael Streppel; Orlando Guntinas-Lichius; Nicole Fulgham-Scott; Johannes Vogt; Wolfram F Neiss
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 5.152

6.  Morphology of experimentally denervated and reinnervated rat facial muscle. I. Histochemical and histological findings.

Authors:  D S Tews; H H Goebel; I Schneider; A Gunkel; E Stennert; W F Neiss
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  Tenascin-R is antiadhesive for activated microglia that induce downregulation of the protein after peripheral nerve injury: a new role in neuronal protection.

Authors:  D N Angelov; M Walther; M Streppel; O Guntinas-Lichius; W F Neiss; R Probstmeier; P Pesheva
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1998-08-15       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Differences in glial, synaptic and motoneuron responses in the facial nucleus of the rat brainstem following facial nerve resection and nerve suture reanastomosis.

Authors:  O Guntinas-Lichius; W F Neiss; A Gunkel; E Stennert
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  Manual stimulation of the whisker pad after hypoglossal-facial anastomosis (HFA) using a Y-tube conduit does not improve recovery of whisking function.

Authors:  Umut Ozsoy; Bahadir Murat Demirel; Arzu Hizay; Ozlem Ozsoy; Janina Ankerne; Srebrina Angelova; Levent Sarikcioglu; Yasar Ucar; Murat Turhan; Sarah Dunlop; Doychin N Angelov
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Unilateral Multiple Facial Nerve Branch Reconstruction Using "End-to-side Loop Graft" Supercharged by Hypoglossal Nerve.

Authors:  Hajime Matsumine; Ryo Sasaki; Yuichi Takeuchi; Yorikatsu Watanabe; Yosuke Niimi; Hiroyuki Sakurai; Mariko Miyata; Masayuki Yamato
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2014-11-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.