4.3 Article

Clinical care and evolution of paraplegic monkeys (Macaca mulatta) over fourteen months post-lesion

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 69, 期 2, 页码 135-143

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neures.2010.11.002

关键词

Spinal cord injury; Paraplegia; Skin ulcers; Urine bladder evacuation; Kyphoscoliosis; Macaque monkey

资金

  1. Junta de Castilla y Leon to Almudena Ramon-Cueto (Spanish Research Council-CSIC-)
  2. Carmen Cavada (Autonomous University of Madrid-UAM-)
  3. CSIC
  4. UAM
  5. Community of Madrid [08.5/0010/2000]
  6. Red CIEN
  7. SAF [2008-04276]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have generated a non-human primate model of complete spinal cord injury (SCI) with a protracted survival time. Two adult Macaca mulatta underwent complete spinal cord transection at T8-T9. We report the effective daily care protocol for over one year survival, the health problems we encountered and the treatments applied. The animals' cages were customized to maintain them in the best possible condition when paraplegic. Daily care, adapted from human care protocols, focused mainly on urinary bladder and skin care, and lower limb rehabilitation. The most important health problems we faced were skin lesions, in particular from self-injury to insensitive regions, and urine voiding dysfunction. Skin lesions were chronic and severe in one of the monkeys. Serious voiding dysfunction occurred temporarily in one monkey in parallel with a high dose oxcarbazepine treatment. The main musculoskeletal complications were vertebral column deformities, which appeared in both monkeys. The rich experience gathered over the lengthy survival period of the two adult paraplegic macaques, the longest to date in the literature, should be useful for other scientists willing to study the long term physiopathological changes that follow SCI as well as the effects of diverse therapeutic strategies before they are applied to humans. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd and the Japan Neuroscience Society. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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