Electrical Nerve Stimulation Enhances Perilesional Branching after Nerve Grafting but Fails to Increase Regeneration Speed in a Murine Model

Christian Witzel, Thomas M. Brushart, Georgios Koulaxouzidis, Manfred Infanger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background Electrical stimulation immediately following nerve lesion helps regenerating axons cross the subsequently grafted nerve repair site. However, the results and the mechanisms remain open to debate. Some findings show that stimulation after crush injury increases axonal crossing of the repair site without affecting regeneration speed. Others show that stimulation after transection and fibrin glue repair doubles regeneration distance. Methods Using a sciatic-nerve-transection-graft in vivo model, we investigated the morphological behavior of regenerating axons around the repair site after unilateral nerve stimulation (20 Hz, 1 hour). With mice expressing axonal fluorescent proteins (thy1-YFP), we were able to calculate the following at 5 and 7 days: percentage of regenerating axons and arborizing axons, branches per axon, and regeneration distance and speed. Results Brief stimulation significantly increases the percentage of regenerating axons (5 days: 35.5 vs. 27.3% nonstimulated, p <0.05; 7 days: 43.3 vs. 33.9% nonstimulated, p <0.05), mainly by increasing arborizing axons (5 days: 49.3 [4.4] vs. 33.9 [4.1]% [p <0.001]; 7 days: 42.2 [5.6] vs. 33.2 [3.1]% [p <0.001]). Neither branches per arborizing axon nor regeneration speed were affected. Conclusion Our morphological data analysis revealed that electrical stimulation in this model increases axonal crossing of the repair site and promotes homogeneous perilesional branching, but does not affect regeneration speed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Reconstructive Microsurgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 9 2016

Fingerprint

Electric Stimulation
Axons
Regeneration
Fibrin Tissue Adhesive
Sciatic Nerve
Transplants
Wounds and Injuries
Proteins

Keywords

  • branching
  • electrical nerve stimulation
  • morphology
  • regeneration speed
  • thy1-YFP mice

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Electrical Nerve Stimulation Enhances Perilesional Branching after Nerve Grafting but Fails to Increase Regeneration Speed in a Murine Model. / Witzel, Christian; Brushart, Thomas M.; Koulaxouzidis, Georgios; Infanger, Manfred.

In: Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery, 09.01.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Witzel, Christian; Brushart, Thomas M.; Koulaxouzidis, Georgios; Infanger, Manfred / Electrical Nerve Stimulation Enhances Perilesional Branching after Nerve Grafting but Fails to Increase Regeneration Speed in a Murine Model.

In: Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery, 09.01.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{29d778acb5d54c5aa94d5b7ee2f3c7de,
title = "Electrical Nerve Stimulation Enhances Perilesional Branching after Nerve Grafting but Fails to Increase Regeneration Speed in a Murine Model",
abstract = "Background Electrical stimulation immediately following nerve lesion helps regenerating axons cross the subsequently grafted nerve repair site. However, the results and the mechanisms remain open to debate. Some findings show that stimulation after crush injury increases axonal crossing of the repair site without affecting regeneration speed. Others show that stimulation after transection and fibrin glue repair doubles regeneration distance. Methods Using a sciatic-nerve-transection-graft in vivo model, we investigated the morphological behavior of regenerating axons around the repair site after unilateral nerve stimulation (20 Hz, 1 hour). With mice expressing axonal fluorescent proteins (thy1-YFP), we were able to calculate the following at 5 and 7 days: percentage of regenerating axons and arborizing axons, branches per axon, and regeneration distance and speed. Results Brief stimulation significantly increases the percentage of regenerating axons (5 days: 35.5 vs. 27.3% nonstimulated, p <0.05; 7 days: 43.3 vs. 33.9% nonstimulated, p <0.05), mainly by increasing arborizing axons (5 days: 49.3 [4.4] vs. 33.9 [4.1]% [p <0.001]; 7 days: 42.2 [5.6] vs. 33.2 [3.1]% [p <0.001]). Neither branches per arborizing axon nor regeneration speed were affected. Conclusion Our morphological data analysis revealed that electrical stimulation in this model increases axonal crossing of the repair site and promotes homogeneous perilesional branching, but does not affect regeneration speed.",
keywords = "branching, electrical nerve stimulation, morphology, regeneration speed, thy1-YFP mice",
author = "Christian Witzel and Brushart, {Thomas M.} and Georgios Koulaxouzidis and Manfred Infanger",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1055/s-0036-1579540",
journal = "Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery",
issn = "0743-684X",
publisher = "Thieme Medical Publishers",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Electrical Nerve Stimulation Enhances Perilesional Branching after Nerve Grafting but Fails to Increase Regeneration Speed in a Murine Model

AU - Witzel,Christian

AU - Brushart,Thomas M.

AU - Koulaxouzidis,Georgios

AU - Infanger,Manfred

PY - 2016/1/9

Y1 - 2016/1/9

N2 - Background Electrical stimulation immediately following nerve lesion helps regenerating axons cross the subsequently grafted nerve repair site. However, the results and the mechanisms remain open to debate. Some findings show that stimulation after crush injury increases axonal crossing of the repair site without affecting regeneration speed. Others show that stimulation after transection and fibrin glue repair doubles regeneration distance. Methods Using a sciatic-nerve-transection-graft in vivo model, we investigated the morphological behavior of regenerating axons around the repair site after unilateral nerve stimulation (20 Hz, 1 hour). With mice expressing axonal fluorescent proteins (thy1-YFP), we were able to calculate the following at 5 and 7 days: percentage of regenerating axons and arborizing axons, branches per axon, and regeneration distance and speed. Results Brief stimulation significantly increases the percentage of regenerating axons (5 days: 35.5 vs. 27.3% nonstimulated, p <0.05; 7 days: 43.3 vs. 33.9% nonstimulated, p <0.05), mainly by increasing arborizing axons (5 days: 49.3 [4.4] vs. 33.9 [4.1]% [p <0.001]; 7 days: 42.2 [5.6] vs. 33.2 [3.1]% [p <0.001]). Neither branches per arborizing axon nor regeneration speed were affected. Conclusion Our morphological data analysis revealed that electrical stimulation in this model increases axonal crossing of the repair site and promotes homogeneous perilesional branching, but does not affect regeneration speed.

AB - Background Electrical stimulation immediately following nerve lesion helps regenerating axons cross the subsequently grafted nerve repair site. However, the results and the mechanisms remain open to debate. Some findings show that stimulation after crush injury increases axonal crossing of the repair site without affecting regeneration speed. Others show that stimulation after transection and fibrin glue repair doubles regeneration distance. Methods Using a sciatic-nerve-transection-graft in vivo model, we investigated the morphological behavior of regenerating axons around the repair site after unilateral nerve stimulation (20 Hz, 1 hour). With mice expressing axonal fluorescent proteins (thy1-YFP), we were able to calculate the following at 5 and 7 days: percentage of regenerating axons and arborizing axons, branches per axon, and regeneration distance and speed. Results Brief stimulation significantly increases the percentage of regenerating axons (5 days: 35.5 vs. 27.3% nonstimulated, p <0.05; 7 days: 43.3 vs. 33.9% nonstimulated, p <0.05), mainly by increasing arborizing axons (5 days: 49.3 [4.4] vs. 33.9 [4.1]% [p <0.001]; 7 days: 42.2 [5.6] vs. 33.2 [3.1]% [p <0.001]). Neither branches per arborizing axon nor regeneration speed were affected. Conclusion Our morphological data analysis revealed that electrical stimulation in this model increases axonal crossing of the repair site and promotes homogeneous perilesional branching, but does not affect regeneration speed.

KW - branching

KW - electrical nerve stimulation

KW - morphology

KW - regeneration speed

KW - thy1-YFP mice

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84961226121&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84961226121&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1055/s-0036-1579540

DO - 10.1055/s-0036-1579540

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery

T2 - Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery

JF - Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery

SN - 0743-684X

ER -