4.7 Article

Aspiration of a cervical spinal contusion injury in preparation for delayed peripheral nerve grafting does not impair forelimb behavior or axon regeneration

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY
Volume 210, Issue 2, Pages 489-500

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2007.11.029

Keywords

spinal cord injury; cervical contusion; peripheral nerve graft; forelimb behavior; CNS regeneration

Categories

Funding

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS026380, NS26380, R37 NS026380, R37 NS026380-20] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A peripheral nerve graft model was used to examine axonal growth after a unilateral cervical (C) contusion injury in adult rats and to determine if manipulation of an injury site prior to transplantation affects spontaneous behavioral recovery. After a short delay (7 d) the epicenter of a C4 contusion was exposed and aspirated without harming the cavity walls followed by apposition with one end of a pre-degenerated tibial nerve to the rostral cavity wall. After a longer delay (28 d) the aspirated cavity was treated with GDNF to promote regeneration by chronically injured neurons. In both groups forelimb and hindlimb locomotor scores decreased significantly 2 d after lesion site manipulation, but by 7 d, the forelimb score was not different from the pre-manipulation score. There was no significant difference in grid walking or grip strength scores for the affected forelimb in either group 7 d after contusion vs. 7 d after manipulation. Over 1500 brain stein and propriospinal neurons grew axons into the graft with either delay. These results demonstrate that a contusion injury site can be manipulated prior to transplantation without causing long-lasting forelimb or hindlimb behavioral deficits and that peripheral nerve grafts support axonal growth after acute or chronic contusion injury. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available