Recovery and Regrowth After Nerve Repair: A Systematic Analysis of Four Repair Techniques

Outcome assessments that evaluate post-transection nerve repair do not often correlate with one another. The aims of this study were twofold: to compare four nerve repair techniques with each other and incorporate both negative and positive control groups and to identify possible correlations betwee...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of surgical research 2020-07, Vol.251, p.311-320
Main Authors: Israel, Jacqueline S., Dingle, Aaron M., Pisaniello, Jane A., Hesse, Madison A., Ness, Jared P., Eliceiri, Kevin W., Williams, Justin C., Poore, Samuel O.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
3D printing
Collagen quantification
Histomorphometry
Nerve regeneration
Nerve repair
Reinnervation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Outcome assessments that evaluate post-transection nerve repair do not often correlate with one another. The aims of this study were twofold: to compare four nerve repair techniques with each other and incorporate both negative and positive control groups and to identify possible correlations between outcome assessments. Sciatic nerve transection and repair was performed in Lewis rats using one of the following techniques: interrupted epineural, running epineural, grouped fascicular, epineural with absorbable type I collagen wrap, and high tension for incorporation of a negative control. A sham surgery group was also included as a positive control group. Outcomes were compared using assessments of functional recovery (behavior and electrophysiology) and nerve regrowth (imaging and histomorphometry). Three-dimensional printed custom electrode stabilization and imaging devices were designed and fabricated to provide standardization in assessment between subjects. Nerve repair was performed in 48 male Lewis rats. In all animals, functional testing was performed at week 13. The sham group (n = 7) performed the best on both behavioral assays (P 
ISSN:0022-4804
1095-8673
DOI:10.1016/j.jss.2020.01.012