4.5 Article

Macro-architectures in spinal cord scaffold implants influence regeneration

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 1027-1037

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2007.0473

关键词

immunohistochemistry; in vivo studies; neural injury; polycaprolactone; regeneration; scaffold architecture; traumatic spinal cord injury

资金

  1. NIH [T32 DE-007057-31]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biomaterial scaffold architecture has not been investigated as a tunable source of influence on spinal cord regeneration. This study compared regeneration in a transected spinal cord within various designed-macro-architecture scaffolds to determine if these architectures alone could enhance regeneration. Three-dimensional (3D) designs were created and molds were built on a 3-D printer. Salt-leached porous poly(epsilon-caprolactone) was cast in five different macro-architectures: cylinder, tube, channel, open-path with core, and open-path without core. The two open-path designs were created in this experiment to compare different supportive aspects of architecture provided by scaffolds and their influence on regeneration. Rats received T8 transections and implanted scaffolds for 1 and 3 months. Overall morphology and orientation of sections were characterized by H&E, luxol fast blue, and cresyl violet staining. Borders between intact gray matter and non-regenerated defect were observed from GFAP immunolabeling. Nerve fibers and regenerating axons were identified with Tuj-1 immunolabeling. The open-path designs allowed extension of myelinated fibers along the length of the defect both exterior to and inside the scaffolds and maintained their original defect length up to 3 months. In contrast, the cylinder, tube, and channel implants had a doubling of defect length from secondary damage and large scar and cyst formation with no neural tissue bridging. The open-path scaffold architectures enhanced spinal cord regeneration compared to the three other designs without the use of biological factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据