4.4 Article

Importance of the vasculature in cyst formation after spinal cord injury Laboratory investigation

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 432-437

Publisher

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/2009.4.SPINE08784

Keywords

traumatic spinal cord injury; vascular injury; glial cell response to injury

Funding

  1. Mayo Foundation
  2. Craig Neilsen Foundation
  3. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioEngineering of the NIH [EB02390]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Object. Glial scar and cystic formation greatly contribute to the inhibition of axonal regeneration after spinal cord injury (SCI). Attempts to promote axonal regeneration are extremely challenging in this type of hostile environment. The objective of this study was to examine the surgical methods that may be used to assess the factors that influence the level of scar and cystic formation in SCI. Methods. In the first part of this study, a complete transection was performed at vertebral level T9-10 in adult female Sprague-Dawley rats. The dura mater was either left open (control group) or was closed using sutures or hyaluronic acid. In the second part of the study, complete or subpial transection was performed, with the same dural closure technique applied to both groups. Histological analysis of longitudinal sections of the spinal cord was performed, and the percentage of scar and cyst formation was determined. Results. Dural closure using sutures resulted in significantly less glial scar formation (p = 0.0248), while incorporation of the subpial transection surgical technique was then shown to significantly decrease cyst formation (p < 0.0001). Conclusions. In this study, the authors demonstrated the importance of the vasculature in cyst formation after spinal cord trauma and confirmed the importance of dural closure in reducing glial scar formation. (DOI: 10.3171/2009.4.SPINE08784)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available