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
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart.
PY - 2016/7/1
Y1 - 2016/7/1
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
C2 - 26975563
AN - SCOPUS:84961226121
SN - 0743-684X
VL - 32
SP - 491
EP - 497
JO - Journal of reconstructive microsurgery
JF - Journal of reconstructive microsurgery
IS - 6
ER -