| Literature DB >> 34164515 |
Huiquan Duan1,2, Yilin Pang1,2, Chenxi Zhao1,2, Tiangang Zhou1,2, Chao Sun1,2, Mengfan Hou1,2, Guangzhi Ning1,2, Shiqing Feng1,2,3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a traumatic disease that is associated with high morbidity, disability, and mortality worldwide. The animal spinal cord contusion model is similar to clinical SCI; therefore, this model is often used to study the pathophysiological changes and treatment strategies for humans after SCI. The present study aimed to introduce a novel, minimally invasive technique to establish an SCI model, and to evaluate its advantages compared with conventional methods.Entities:
Keywords: Spinal cord injury (SCI); animal model; conventional surgery; minimally invasive surgery
Year: 2021 PMID: 34164515 PMCID: PMC8184457 DOI: 10.21037/atm-21-2063
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Figure 1Conventional surgery was used to establish a spinal cord contusion model. (A) Skin incision and superficial fascia excision; (B) separation of the paraspinal muscles of T8–T11 and removal of 1-mm of paraspinal muscles from both sides; (C) T9 and T10 laminas were exposed; (D) spinous process fixation of T8 and T11.
Figure 2Novel, minimally invasive technique to establish the spinal cord contusion model. (A) Skin incision and superficial fascia excision; (B) separation of the paraspinal muscles of T9–T11, but paraspinal muscles were not removed. (C) T10 lamina was exposed; (D) laminectomy of 1/2 T10; (E) enlarged view of exposed spinal cord; (F) spinous process fixation of T9 and T11; (G) spinal cord hematoma after successful modeling.
Figure 3Operation-related parameters of the two spinal cord injury models. (A) Incision length of the conventional surgery group and minimally invasive group; (B) blood loss of the two groups; (C) operation time of the conventional surgery group and minimally invasive group; (D) model success rate of the two groups. Data were presented as means ± standard deviations. The comparisons were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. **, P<0.01; ***, P<0.001. n=12.
Figure 4Early complications of surgery between the two methods. (A) Hematuria rate of conventional surgery group and minimally invasive group; (B) hematoma in the two groups; (C) incidence of kyphosis; (D) daily weight of rats to observe the effects of the two operations; (E) mortality of rats with the two model methods. Data were presented as means ± standard deviations. The comparisons were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. *, P<0.05. n=12.
Figure 5Comparison of the late postoperative complications between the two groups. (A,B,C) Micro-computed tomography was used to observe scoliosis or kyphosis in rats in conventional group; (D,E,F) micro-computed tomography was used to observe scoliosis or kyphosis in rats in minimally group; (G) the visual observation of the tissue was used to compare the effect of laminectomy by 2 methods on the scar hyperplasia at the injured site.
Figure 6Function recovery of rats with the 2 model methods. (A) Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan score; data were presented as means ± standard deviations. Analysis of the differences among three groups was done using 2-way analysis of variance with Tukey’s post-hoc test. n=6; (B) catwalk automated quantitative gait analysis of minimally invasive technique and conventional method; (C,D) stride length and regularity index of catwalk; data were presented as means ± standard deviations. The comparisons were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. n=3; (E) somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) and motor evoked potential (MEP); (F,G) quantification of latency (ms) of SEP and MEP. (H,I) quantification of amplitude (uV) of SEP and MEP. Data were presented as means ± standard deviations. The comparisons were analyzed using the unpaired t-test. n=3.