4.7 Article

Sodium channel blockade with phenytoin protects spinal cord axons, enhances axonal conduction, and improves functional motor recovery after contusion SCI

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY
卷 188, 期 2, 页码 365-377

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2004.04.001

关键词

neuroprotection; axons; spinal cord; trauma; locomotion

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [1 F32 NS046919-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accumulation of intracellular sodium through voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSCs) is an important event in the cascade leading to anatomic degeneration of spinal cord axons and poor functional outcome following traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). In this study, we hypothesized that phenytoin, a sodium channel blocker, would result in protection of axons with concomitant improvement of functional recovery after SCI. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats underwent T9 contusion SCI after being fed normal chow or chow containing phenytoin; serum levels of phenytoin were within therapeutic range at the time of injury. At various timepoints after injury, quantitative assessment of lesion volumes, axonal degeneration, axonal conduction, and functional locomotor recovery were performed. When compared to controls, phenytoin-treated animals demonstrated reductions in the degree of destruction of gray and white matter surrounding the lesion epicenter, sparing of axons within the dorsal corticospinal tract (dCST) and dorsal column (DC) system rostral to the lesion site, and within the dorsolateral funiculus (DLF) caudal to the lesion site, and enhanced axonal conduction across the lesion site. Improved performance in measures of skilled locomotor function was observed in pbenytoin-treated animals. Based on these results, we conclude that phenytoin provides neuroprotection and improves functional outcome after experimental SCI, and that it merits further examination as a potential treatment strategy in human SCI. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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