Why the study?
Does the method and timing of repair affect nerve regeneration in an animal model of brachial plexus traction injury?
Does the method and timing of repair affect nerve regeneration in an animal model of brachial plexus traction injury?
In an animal model of brachial plexus traction injury, nerve autografts generally performed better than or equal to muscle autografts, and delayed repair worsened outcomes when muscle autografts were used.
Preclinical ovine data favor nerve autografts and immediate repair; leaves open translation to human brachial plexus injury.
A Sunderland type IV traction injury to the C6 root of adult sheep or newborn lamb brachial plexus was used as a model for obstetric traction injury to the C5 root in humans. In one experimental cohort the injury was created and repaired using interfascicular nerve autografts or coaxially aligned freeze-thawed skeletal muscle autografts in a group of adult sheep and in a group of newborn lambs. In a second cohort a similar injury was created and repaired either immediately or after a delay of 30 days, using either interfascicular nerve autografts or coaxially aligned freeze-thawed skeletal muscle autografts in four groups of six newborn lambs. In all cases both functional and morphometric indices of nerve regeneration were poorer in the injured and repaired nerves than in normal nerves. In lambs the method of repair made no difference and no significant differences were found for any of the indices of nerve function or morphology. In sheep the use of muscle grafts was associated with a poorer outcome than the use of nerve autografts. Where a delay of 30 days had elapsed between injury and repair, the results using nerve autografts were not significantly different. Where freeze-thawed muscle autografts had been used, the maturation of the regenerated nerve fibres after delay was significantly poorer than after immediate repair. The electrophysiological variables CV(max) and jitter, which may be applied clinically, were found to be good discriminators of recovery in all of the animals and in respect of all procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fullarton et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: