| Literature DB >> 26649163 |
Mohamed Abdelhamid Ali Yousef1, Paolo Dionigi2, Stefania Marconi1, Alberto Calligaro3, Antonia Icaro Cornaglia3, Enrico Alfonsi4, Ferdinando Auricchio5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Repair of peripheral nerve injuries is an intensive area of challenge and research in modern reconstructive microsurgery. Intensive research is being carried out to develop effective alternatives to the standard nerve autografting, avoiding its drawbacks. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a newly designed mechanical device for the reconstruction of the sciatic nerve in rats in comparison to nerve autografting and to assess the pain during the period of distraction neurogenesis.Entities:
Keywords: Nerve lengthening; Nerve regeneration; Peripheral nerve injuries
Year: 2015 PMID: 26649163 PMCID: PMC4668872
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Basic Clin Neurosci ISSN: 2008-126X
Figure 1.3D view of the nerve-lengthening device design. It is composed of 3 parts: part 1 (in red) is fixed to the k-wire (in white), part 2 (in blue) can be rotated to move the suture filament attached through 2 holes, part 3 (in green) to handle the device during the movement of part 2.
Figure 2.The final design of nerve-lengthening device.
Figure 3.Surgical procedure. A) Sciatic nerve segment resection. B) 10-mm resected nerve segment. C) 180 degrees rotated nerve segment with primary end-to-end neurorrhaphy. D) Nerve lengthening of the proximal stump at the end of the experiment for secondary neurorrhaphy. E) The mechanical device was fixed to the femur with simple advancement of its self-tapping threaded tip against the bone. F) The shoulder of the motor unit flushed with the surface of the femur.
Figure 4.Measuring the distance from the first to the fifth toe, the toe spread (TS); and the distance from the second to the fourth toe, the intermediary toe spread (ITS) in both the normal and experimental hindlimb.
Figure 5.Positions of the needle electrodes for EMG.
Figure 6.The Medelec Sapphire 1P EMG machine.
Figure 7.Graphical presentation of the mean RGS pain score of the rats of group (B) during the period of nerve lengthening.
Descriptive statistics of the SSI scores in both groups.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nerve Autograft group (A) | −42.11 | −86.49 | −64.4957 | 14.47546 |
| Nerve lengthening group (B) | −24.36 | −63.74 | −41.5900 | 12.67766 |
Descriptive statistics of the recorded latency and amplitude in the operated and normal contralateral sciatic nerve in both experimental groups.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latency in autograft group (A) | 1.75 | 3.35 | 2.5643 | 0.54061 |
| Amplitude in autograft group (A) | 4.83 | 16.90 | 11.6257 | 3.98038 |
| Latency in contralateral limb of autograft group (A) | 1.20 | 1.95 | 1.6000 | 0.24495 |
| Amplitude in contralateral limb of autograft group (A) | 17.80 | 67.60 | 35.8286 | 17.94034 |
| Latency in nerve lengthening group (B) | 1.55 | 2.25 | 1.8667 | 0.27689 |
| Amplitude in nerve lengthening group (B) | 8.25 | 30.80 | 16.8750 | 7.59748 |
| Latency in contralateral limb of nerve lengthening group (B) | 1.30 | 2.30 | 1.7714 | 0.31867 |
| Amplitude in contralateral limb of nerve lengthening group (B) | 31.10 | 40.00 | 33.4714 | 3.30541 |
Descriptive statistics of the conduction velocity in both experimental groups.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conduction velocity in the operated hindlimb of autograft group (A) | 11.34 | 21.71 | 15.4589 | 3.61602 |
| Conduction velocity in the contralateral hindlimb of the autograft group (A) | 19.49 | 31.67 | 24.2721 | 4.03371 |
| Conduction velocity in the operated hindlimb of nerve lengthening group (B) | 16.89 | 24.52 | 20.7343 | 3.06584 |
| Conduction velocity in the contralateral hindlimb of nerve lengthening group (B) | 16.52 | 29.23 | 22.0629 | 4.05385 |
Descriptive statistics of gastrocnemius muscle weight measurement in both experimental groups.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gastrocnemius weight in operated hindlimb of autogarft group (A) | 0.82 | 1.89 | 1.4549 | 0.35179 |
| Gastrocnemius weight in contralateral hindlimb of autogarft group (A) | 2.26 | 3.58 | 2.9696 | 0.47599 |
| Gastrocnemius weight in operated hindlimb of nerve Lengthening group (B) | 0.65 | 3.27 | 1.8973 | 0.88324 |
| Gastrocnemius weight in contralateral hindlimb of nerve Lengthening group (B) | 2.39 | 3.51 | 2.8084 | 0.44044 |
Comparative statistical analysis of the histological parameters of the intermediate nerve segment.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fascicular Area% | 42.04±7.03 | 33.28±2.77 | 0.03846 |
| Myelin Area% | 32.17±4.8 | 27.03±2.82 | 0.07346 |
| Fiber Density/mm2 | 32.172±6.516 | 25.223±3.128 | 0.01828 |
| Mean Fiber Diameter (μm) | 3.840±0.242 | 3.9023±0.225 | 0.61708 |
| Mean Axon Diameter (μm) | 2.4686±0.636 | 2.6294±0.191 | 0.83366 |
| Mean Myelin Sheath Thickness (μm) | 1.4228±0.532 | 1.2720±0.182 | 0.9442 |
| G-Ratio | 0.63±0.15 | 0.66±0.03 | 0.71884 |
| Average Myelin Surface Area (μm2) | 10.3546±1.592 | 11.042±0.993 | 0.52218 |
| Average Axon Surface Area (μm2) | 5.333±2.044 | 5.6673±0.878 | 0.83366 |
| Ratio Myelin/Axon | 2.81±2.73 | 1.98±0.29 | 0.61708 |
| Mean Fiber Surface Area (μm2) | 13.1827±1.692 | 12.7601±2.117 | 0.89656 |
| Fiber Number/Representative field | 462±92.77 | 356.17±44.17 | 0.01828 |
Denotes a statistically significant difference when P value <0.05
Comparative statistical analysis of the histological parameters of the distal nerve sample.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fascicular Area% | 24.5003±6.81 | 23.2824±7.288 | 0.83366 |
| Myelin Area% | 18.3650±4.7 | 19.7311±6.708 | 0.42952 |
| Fiber Density/mm2 | 21.26967±5,861 | 19,24214±5,916 | 0.61708 |
| Mean Fiber Diameter (μm) | 3.638833±0.274 | 3.737257±0.458 | 0.83366 |
| Mean Axon Diameter (μm) | 2.6902±0.183 | 2.494257±0.286 | 0.35238 |
| Mean Myelin Sheath Thickness (μm) | 0.948633±0.174 | 1.332833±0.275 | 0.02034 |
| G-Ratio | 0.7283±0.03 | 0.6657±0.07 | 0.04363 |
| Average Myelin Surface Area (μm2) | 8.91067±0.761 | 10.571±2.939 | 0.35238 |
| Average Axon Surface Area (μm2) | 6.026±0.883 | 5.33671±0.994 | 0.35238 |
| Ratio Myelin/Axon | 1.4965±0.172 | 2.0163±0.585 | 0.01828 |
| Mean Fiber Surface Area (μm2) | 11.6105±1.838 | 12.2834±3.217 | 0.71884 |
| Fiber Number/Representative field | 300.67±82.91 | 271.71±83.54 | 0.61708 |
Denotes a statistically significant difference when P value <0.05
Figure 8.Light microscopic photomicrographs of the histological specimens of the sciatic nerve magnified at 63×A) Nerve section at the intermediate nerve segment of the autograft in group A.B) Nerve section at the area of lengthened regenerated nerve segment in group B.C) Nerve section of the distal nerve segment at 3 mm distal to the repair site in group A.D) Nerve section of the distal nerve segment at 3 mm distal to the repair site in group B.