OBJECTIVES: To systematically record rat facial nerve recovery following crush injury to the main trunk with respect to ocular and vibrissial function and to compare the rates of facial and sciatic nerve recovery from crush injury in the same animals. This serves as a means of validating the functional parameters of facial nerve recovery against the well-known measure of hind limb function, the Sciatic Function Index. METHODS: The main trunk of the facial nerve and the proximal segment of the sciatic nerve were exposed in all animals. Both nerves were subjected to standardized crush injury and subsequent daily functional testing. After a plateau of functional recovery was achieved, the animals were killed, and the distances between the sites of injury and the end musculature were measured, which allowed determination and comparison of recovery rates in both systems. RESULTS: All crush injuries resulted in loss of electrical conductivity, as proven by intraoperative proximal nerve stimulation. Recovery of ocular and vibrissial motor function occurred starting at postoperative day (POD) 9 and continuing through POD 20. Hind limb function returned later (POD 14-34); however, when corrected for distance, the sciatic recovery rate (2.26 mm/d) appeared to match that of the facial nerve (1.5-2.4 mm/d). CONCLUSIONS: Recovery after facial nerve crush injury follows a predictable time course, and the rate of recovery is consistent with that of sciatic nerve injury. Return of the blink reflex, loss of vibrissial fibrillations, and return of vibrissial sweeping function appear to be internally consistent functional measures of facial recovery. These quantitative measures will be useful for future facial nerve manipulation studies.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically record rat facial nerve recovery following crush injury to the main trunk with respect to ocular and vibrissial function and to compare the rates of facial and sciatic nerve recovery from crush injury in the same animals. This serves as a means of validating the functional parameters of facial nerve recovery against the well-known measure of hind limb function, the Sciatic Function Index. METHODS: The main trunk of the facial nerve and the proximal segment of the sciatic nerve were exposed in all animals. Both nerves were subjected to standardized crush injury and subsequent daily functional testing. After a plateau of functional recovery was achieved, the animals were killed, and the distances between the sites of injury and the end musculature were measured, which allowed determination and comparison of recovery rates in both systems. RESULTS: All crush injuries resulted in loss of electrical conductivity, as proven by intraoperative proximal nerve stimulation. Recovery of ocular and vibrissial motor function occurred starting at postoperative day (POD) 9 and continuing through POD 20. Hind limb function returned later (POD 14-34); however, when corrected for distance, the sciatic recovery rate (2.26 mm/d) appeared to match that of the facial nerve (1.5-2.4 mm/d). CONCLUSIONS: Recovery after facial nerve crush injury follows a predictable time course, and the rate of recovery is consistent with that of sciatic nerve injury. Return of the blink reflex, loss of vibrissial fibrillations, and return of vibrissial sweeping function appear to be internally consistent functional measures of facial recovery. These quantitative measures will be useful for future facial nerve manipulation studies.
Authors: Jacqueline J Greene; Mark T McClendon; Nicholas Stephanopoulos; Zaida Álvarez; Samuel I Stupp; Claus-Peter Richter Journal: J Tissue Eng Regen Med Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 3.963
Authors: Caroline A Banks; Christopher Knox; Daniel A Hunter; Susan E Mackinnon; Marc H Hohman; Tessa A Hadlock Journal: J Reconstr Microsurg Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 2.873
Authors: James T Heaton; Shu Hsien Sheu; Marc H Hohman; Christopher J Knox; Julie S Weinberg; Ingrid J Kleiss; Tessa A Hadlock Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: Doug Henstrom; Tessa Hadlock; Robin Lindsay; Christopher J Knox; Juan Malo; Kalpesh T Vakharia; James T Heaton Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Kia M Washington; Mario G Solari; Justin M Sacks; Elaine K Horibe; Jignesh V Unadkat; George E Carvell; Daniel J Simons; W P Andrew Lee Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: James T Heaton; Jeffrey Kowaleski; Colin Edwards; Christopher Smitson; Tessa A Hadlock Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-08-26 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Christina K Magill; Alice Tong; David Kawamura; Ayato Hayashi; Daniel A Hunter; Alexander Parsadanian; Susan E Mackinnon; Terence M Myckatyn Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2007-06-14 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Tessa A Hadlock; Jeffrey Kowaleski; David Lo; Susan E Mackinnon; James T Heaton Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.730