Tessa A Hadlock1, Jeffrey Kowaleski, David Lo, Susan E Mackinnon, James T Heaton. 1. Boston, Mass.; and St. Louis, Mo. From the Department of Otology and Laryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, the Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measuring rodent facial movements is a reliable method for studying recovery from facial nerve manipulation and for examining the behavioral correlates of aberrant regeneration. The authors quantitatively compared recovery of vibrissal and ocular function following three types of clinically relevant nerve injury. METHODS: One hundred seventy-eight adult rats underwent facial nerve manipulation and testing. In the experimental groups, the left facial nerve was either crushed, transected, and repaired epineurially, or transected and the stumps suture-secured into a tube with a 2-mm gap between them. Facial recovery was measured for the ensuing 1 to 4 months. Data were analyzed for whisking recovery. Previously developed markers of co-contraction of the upper and midfacial zones (possible synkinesis markers) were also examined. RESULTS: Animals in the crush groups recovered nearly normal whisking parameters within 25 days. The distal branch crush group showed improved recovery over the main trunk crush group for several days during early recovery. By week 9, the transection/repair groups showed evidence of recovery that trended further upward throughout the study period. The entubulation groups followed a similar recovery pattern, although they did not maintain significant recovery levels by the study conclusion. Markers of potential synkinesis increased in selected groups following facial nerve injury. CONCLUSIONS: Rodent vibrissal function recovers in a predictable fashion following manipulation. Generalized co-contraction of the upper and midfacial zones emerges following facial nerve manipulation, possibly related to aberrant regeneration, polyterminal axons, or hypersensitivity of the rodent to sensory stimuli following nerve manipulation.
BACKGROUND: Measuring rodent facial movements is a reliable method for studying recovery from facial nerve manipulation and for examining the behavioral correlates of aberrant regeneration. The authors quantitatively compared recovery of vibrissal and ocular function following three types of clinically relevant nerve injury. METHODS: One hundred seventy-eight adult rats underwent facial nerve manipulation and testing. In the experimental groups, the left facial nerve was either crushed, transected, and repaired epineurially, or transected and the stumps suture-secured into a tube with a 2-mm gap between them. Facial recovery was measured for the ensuing 1 to 4 months. Data were analyzed for whisking recovery. Previously developed markers of co-contraction of the upper and midfacial zones (possible synkinesis markers) were also examined. RESULTS: Animals in the crush groups recovered nearly normal whisking parameters within 25 days. The distal branch crush group showed improved recovery over the main trunk crush group for several days during early recovery. By week 9, the transection/repair groups showed evidence of recovery that trended further upward throughout the study period. The entubulation groups followed a similar recovery pattern, although they did not maintain significant recovery levels by the study conclusion. Markers of potential synkinesis increased in selected groups following facial nerve injury. CONCLUSIONS: Rodent vibrissal function recovers in a predictable fashion following manipulation. Generalized co-contraction of the upper and midfacial zones emerges following facial nerve manipulation, possibly related to aberrant regeneration, polyterminal axons, or hypersensitivity of the rodent to sensory stimuli following nerve manipulation.
Authors: Laura E T Hetzler; Nijee Sharma; Lisa Tanzer; Robert D Wurster; John Leonetti; Sam J Marzo; Kathryn J Jones; Eileen M Foecking Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.497
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: 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: Tessa A Hadlock; Sang W Kim; Julie S Weinberg; Christopher J Knox; Marc H Hohman; James T Heaton Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 4.611
Authors: James T Heaton; Christopher J Knox; Juan S Malo; James B Kobler; Tessa A Hadlock Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: S Ahmed Ali; John E Hanks; Aaron W Stebbins; Samantha T Cohen; Daniel A Hunter; Alison K Snyder-Warwick; Susan E Mackinnon; Robbi A Kupfer; Norman D Hogikyan; Eva L Feldman; Michael J Brenner Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 4.611
Authors: Fuat Baris Bengur; Conrad Stoy; Mary A Binko; Wayne Vincent Nerone; Caroline Nadia Fedor; Mario G Solari; Kacey G Marra Journal: Tissue Eng Part B Rev Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 7.376