| Literature DB >> 29861775 |
Yi-Fan Li1, Tie Li2, Da-Wei Zhang3, Hui Xue4, Dong Chen5, Chen Li6, Fu-Chun Wang2.
Abstract
The present study aimed to evaluate the role of the combination treatment of methylprednisolone (MP) and electroacupuncture (EA) in regeneration of nerve fibers and functional recovery in rats with spinal cord injury (SCI). Female Wistar rats were used for an SCI model by using a weight-drop hammer at levels T10 (spinal cord segment corresponding to the 10th thoracic vertebra). Four groups received different treatments for the study: SCI control, MP, MP and EA, and Sham. The growth of nerve fibers was examined by counting fluorescein positive nerve fibers. The motor functional recovery was evaluated by Basso, Beattie, Bresnahan (BBB) score, and electrophysiology analysis. We found that, compared to MP groups, there were more well-oriented and paralleled fluorescein positive nerve fibers in MP and EA group. Both latencies and amplitudes of the Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) in the combination therapy of MP and EA were higher than MP group. Additionally, recovered hindlimb movements were sustained in most rats in the MP and EA group. Our study indicated that combination therapies could become a powerful treatment for SCI in rats.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29861775 PMCID: PMC5971301 DOI: 10.1155/2018/7568697
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1FR anterograde tagging for spinal cord of coronal plane. Arrow indicates the positive nerve fibers (red): (a) SCI control group; (b) MP group; (c) MP and EA group; and (d) Sham group (bar = 100 μm).
Figure 2MEP wave shape. (a) SCI control group; (b) MP group; (c) MP and EA group; and (d) Sham group. (e) The latency of MEP (n = 6; ∗ versus MP group, P < 0.01; △ versus MP and EA group, P < 0.01). (f) The peak-to-peak value of MEP (n = 6; ∗ versus MP group, P < 0.01; △ versus MP and EA group, P < 0.01). Statistical analyses of MEP results were performed by single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA), and least significant difference (LSD) was used for intergroup comparison.
Figure 3Comparison of BBB score of hind limb motor function. n = 18; ∗ versus MP group, P < 0.01; △ versus MP and EA group, P < 0.01; statistical analyses of BBB score results were performed by the ANOVA of repeated measurement design based on the original data.