| Literature DB >> 26466786 |
Bilal Gümüs1, Ersin Kuyucu2,3, Oytun Erbas4, Cemal Kazimoglu5, Fatih Oltulu6, Osman Arslan Bora1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growth factors such as nerve growth factor (NGF) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) have been shown to play a role in the healing process of nerve injury. Recent researches have also shown that oxytocin administration activates these growth factors of importance for the healing of nerve tissue. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effects of oxytocin on peripheral nerve regeneration in rats.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26466786 PMCID: PMC4607250 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-015-0301-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1a Stereomicroscopic photograph of nerve regeneration in oxytocin treatment group. Axonal sprouting (arrows) is pronounced and joins the nerve ends at the third-week follow-up. b Completion of nerve healing and maturation of the axonal sprouting at the 12-week follow-up (circled zone). The distal stump revealed considerable increase in diameter
Body weight measurements (grams)
| Follow-up period | Treatment group | Control group |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SS | Mean ± SS | ||
| Before surgery | 195.83 ± 5.15 | 197.08 ± 4.64 | 0.187 |
| 1 week | 203.33 ± 8.88 | 206.04 ± 10.53 | 0.342 |
| 3 weeks | 219.09 ± 25.08 | 222.73 ± 21.64 | 0.203 |
| 6 weeks | 261 ± 36.95 | 261.5 ± 35.28 | 0.969 |
| 9 weeks | 277.78 ± 47.38 | 277.22 ± 49.09 | 0.824 |
| 12 weeks | 284.29 ± 41.98 | 272 ± 54.01 | 0.220 |
Comparison of groups in terms of axon counting
| Treatment group—right | Treatment group—left | Control group—right | Control group—left | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 week | 480.2 ± 27.4 | 460 ± 13 | 330.5 ± 19.6 | 213 ± 24 |
| 3 weeks | 695.8 ± 41.5 | 303.33 ± 20.06 | 327.5 ± 21.7 | 202.5 ± 18.33 |
| 9 weeks | 620.3 ± 20 | 360.30 ± 28 | 380.4 ± 12.1 | 320.6 ± 11 |
| 12 weeks | 443.8 ± 35.9 | 362.4 ± 16.7 | 318.6 ± 14.06 | 249.6 ± 21.4 |
P values were P < 0.01 and P < 0.005, respectively, after comparison of right (transection) and left (defect) models among the groups after 12 weeks
Fig. 2Electromyograph recordings of the right limb (transection model) obtained after 9 weeks. a Control group. b Treatment group
Functional evaluation via climbing degrees
| Follow-up period | Treatment group | Control group |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SS | Mean ± SS | ||
| 1 week | 58.33 ± 2.46 | 55.63 ± 3.99 |
|
| 3 weeks | 55.45 ± 2.7 | 55.91 ± 2.51 | 0.562 |
| 6 weeks | 55.5 ± 2.84 | 56.25 ± 2.75 | 0.353 |
| 9 weeks | 57.78 ± 2.64 | 56.94 ± 3.49 | 0.258 |
| 12 weeks | 57.5 ± 5.46 | 53.57 ± 4.76 |
|
Comparison of EMG recordings between groups
| Treatment group | Control group |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right | Left | Right | Left | R/L | |
| (Transection) | (Defect) | (Transection) | (Defect) | ||
| 9 weeks (amplitude) | 12.25 ± 1.57 | 8.47 ± 1.87 | 6.99 ± 0.90 | 6.10 ± 1.53 |
|
| 9 weeks (latency) | 1.25 ± 0.03 | 1.31 ± 0.04 | 1.22 ± 0.02 | 1.27 ± 0.04 | 0.27/0.269 |
| 12 weeks (amplitude) | 12.92 ± 2.86 | 11.17 ± 1.60 | 8.34 ± 0.42 | 7.75 ± 0.68 |
|
| 12 weeks (latency) | 1.05 ± 0.01 | 1.12 ± 0.02 | 1.16 ± 0.03 | 1.32 ± 0.03 |
|