| Literature DB >> 28389905 |
Divya Bhatnagar1, Jared S Bushman1,2, N Sanjeeva Murthy1, Antonio Merolli1, Hilton M Kaplan1, Joachim Kohn3.
Abstract
Porous conduits provide a protected pathway for nerve regeneration, while still allowing exchange of nutrients and wastes. However, pore sizes >30 µm may permit fibrous tissue infiltration into the conduit, which may impede axonal regeneration. Coating the conduit with Fibrin Glue (FG) is one option for controlling the conduit's porosity. FG is extensively used in clinical peripheral nerve repair, as a tissue sealant, filler and drug-delivery matrix. Here, we compared the performance of FG to an alternative, hyaluronic acid (HA) as a coating for porous conduits, using uncoated porous conduits and reverse autografts as control groups. The uncoated conduit walls had pores with a diameter of 60 to 70 µm that were uniformly covered by either FG or HA coatings. In vitro, FG coatings degraded twice as fast as HA coatings. In vivo studies in a 1 cm rat sciatic nerve model showed FG coating resulted in poor axonal density (993 ± 854 #/mm2), negligible fascicular area (0.03 ± 0.04 mm2), minimal percent wet muscle mass recovery (16 ± 1 in gastrocnemius and 15 ± 5 in tibialis anterior) and G-ratio (0.73 ± 0.01). Histology of FG-coated conduits showed excessive fibrous tissue infiltration inside the lumen, and fibrin capsule formation around the conduit. Although FG has been shown to promote nerve regeneration in non-porous conduits, we found that as a coating for porous conduits in vivo, FG encourages scar tissue infiltration that impedes nerve regeneration. This is a significant finding considering the widespread use of FG in peripheral nerve repair.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28389905 PMCID: PMC5384961 DOI: 10.1007/s10856-017-5889-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med ISSN: 0957-4530 Impact factor: 3.896
Fig. 1a SEM micrographs of the longitudinal view of the uncoated, HA and FG-coated conduits. An average pore size for uncoated conduits of 65 ± 19 µm was measured by Image J. After coating with either HA or FG, the coatings covered the macropores of the braided conduits, and no open pores were visible by SEM. [Scale bar = 100 µm]. b SEM micrographs of the HA and FG hydrogel coating after 6 weeks. The hydrogel coatings remain structurally intact at 6 weeks when compared to day 0. Scale bar = 100 µm c Weight (in percent of initial weight) of hydrogel coating remaining on the conduit surface after in vitro degradation over 16 weeks
Compressive structural stiffness and bending stiffness of the uncoated conduit compared to the HA-coated and FG-coated conduit (mean ± SD of the three samples tested)
| Uncoated conduit | HA coated conduit | FG-coated conduit | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compressive structural stiffness (N/mm) | 23 ± 2 | 28 ± 3 | 30 ± 5 |
| Bending stiffness (EI, Nmm2) | 15 ± 5 | 15 ± 3 | 17 ± 3 |
Fig. 2Toluidine blue stained 1 μm-thick cross sections of the conduits explanted after 16 weeks in vivo. 50× images show entire conduit and nerve cable (dark stain) [Scale bar = 200 µm], 400× images show the interface between axonal tissue and surrounding inter-luminal area [Scale bar = 50 µm] and 1000× images represent the 1 µm-thick nerve mid-segments post-fixed with osmium tetraoxide for a Uncoated b FG-coated (very few myelinated axons present in some cases) c HA-coated (high density of myelinated axons) d Autologous. [Scale bar = 10 µm]. (FT fibrous tissue, Ep Epineurium, C Conduit, L lumen, FC fibrous capsule, NC nerve cable)
Nerve histomorphometry of the four comparative groups: Average density of the myelinated nerve fibers: Axonal Density (#/mm2); The total surface area of the axonal tissue: Fascicular area (mm2); Mean G-ratio: the ratio of inner axonal diameter to the total outer diameter
| Groups | Average axonal density (#/mm2) | Fascicular area (mm2) | G-ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autologous | 6460 ± 362 | 0.36 ± 0.08 | 0.64 ± 0.02 |
| Uncoated | 5382 ± 428 | 0.15 ± 0.02 | 0.69 ± 0.02 |
| FG-coated | 993 ± 854 | 0.03 ± 0.04 | 0.73 ± 0.01 |
| HA-coated | 7130 ± 306 | 0.17 ± 0.04 | 0.66 ± 0.02 |
Data are represented as mean ± SE
Percent wet muscle mass recovery at the end of 16 weeks for Gastrocnemius and Tibialis Anterior muscles
| Groups | Gastrocnemius muscle recovery (%) | Tibialis anterior muscle recovery (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Autologous | 60 ± 6 | 69 ± 4 |
| Uncoated | 34 ± 3 | 42 ± 2 |
| FG-coated | 16 ± 1 | 15 ± 5 |
| HA coated | 50 ± 2 | 60 ± 3 |
Fig. 3Electrophysiological measurements pre and post-op. every 4 weeks till 16 weeks. CMAP area a Peroneal b Tibial; CMAP Latency: c Peroneal and d Tibial nerve