Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37(07): 559-565
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1722762
Original Article

Histologic and Functional Outcomes of Conduit Wrapping for Peripheral Nerve Repair: Early Results in a Rat Model

David M. Brogan 
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Christopher J. Dy
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Tony Y. Lee
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Dana Rioux-Forker
2   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
,
Jason Wever
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Fraser J. Leversedge
3   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported in part by a KL-2 Career Development Award awarded to D.M.B. from the University of Missouri.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The concept of utilizing a nerve conduit for augmentation of a primary nerve repair has been advocated as a method to prevent neural scarring and decrease adhesions. Despite clinical use, little is known about the effects of a nerve conduit wrapped around a primary repair. To better understand this, we investigated the histologic and functional effects of use of a nerve conduit wrapped around a rat sciatic nerve repair without tension.

Methods Twenty Lewis' rats were divided into two groups of 10 rats each. In each group, unilateral sciatic nerve transection and repair were performed, with the opposite limb utilized as a matched control. In the first group, direct repair alone was performed; in the second group, this repair was augmented with a porcine submucosa conduit wrapped around the repair site. Sciatic functional index (SFI) was measured at 6 weeks with walking track analysis in both groups. Nonsurvival surgeries were then performed in all animals to harvest both the experimental and control nerves to measure histomorphometric parameters of recovery. Histomorphometric parameters assessed included total number of neurons, nerve fiber density, nerve fiber width, G-ratio, and percentage of debris. Unpaired t-test was used to compare outcomes between the two groups.

Results All nerves healed uneventfully but compared with direct repair; conduit usage was associated with greater histologic debris, decreased axonal density, worse G-ratio, and worse SFI. No significant differences were found in total axon count or gastrocnemius weight.

Conclusion In the absence of segmental defects, conduit wrapping primary nerve repairs seem to be associated with worse functional and mixed histologic outcomes at 6 weeks, possibly due to debris from conduit resorption. While clinical implications are unclear, more basic science and clinical studies should be performed prior to widespread adoption of this practice.

Keywords

conduit - nerve repair - nerve wrap - peripheral nerve - conduit wrap - regeneration

Note

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees at Washington University in St. Louis and at the University of Missouri.




Publication History

Received: 13 July 2020

Accepted: 19 November 2020

Article published online:
31 January 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Bora Jr FW. Peripheral nerve repair in cats. The fascicular stitch. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1967; 49 (04) 659-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Atkins S, Smith KG, Loescher AR. et al. Scarring impedes regeneration at sites of peripheral nerve repair. Neuroreport 2006; 17 (12) 1245-1249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ngeow WC. Scar less: a review of methods of scar reduction at sites of peripheral nerve repair. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 109 (03) 357-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Eather TF, Pollock M, Myers DB. Proximal and distal changes in collagen content of peripheral nerve that follow transection and crush lesions. Exp Neurol 1986; 92 (02) 299-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Siemionow M, Uygur S, Ozturk C, Siemionow K. Techniques and materials for enhancement of peripheral nerve regeneration: a literature review. Microsurgery 2013; 33 (04) 318-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Thomsen L, Schlur C. [Incidence of painful neuroma after end-to-end nerve suture wrapped into a collagen conduit. A prospective study of 185 cases] (in French). Chir Main 2013; 32 (05) 335-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kokkalis ZT, Pu C, Small GA, Weiser RW, Venouziou AI, Sotereanos DG. Assessment of processed porcine extracellular matrix as a protective barrier in a rabbit nerve wrap model. J Reconstr Microsurg 2011; 27 (01) 19-28
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Papatheodorou LK, Williams BG, Sotereanos DG. Preliminary results of recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome treated with neurolysis and porcine extracellular matrix nerve wrap. J Hand Surg Am 2015; 40 (05) 987-992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Soltani AM, Allan BJ, Best MJ, Mir HS, Panthaki ZJ. Revision decompression and collagen nerve wrap for recurrent and persistent compression neuropathies of the upper extremity. Ann Plast Surg 2014; 72 (05) 572-578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dy CJ, Aunins B, Brogan DM. Barriers to epineural scarring: role in treatment of traumatic nerve injury and chronic compressive neuropathy. J Hand Surg Am 2018; 43 (04) 360-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Braga Silva J, Marchese GM, Cauduro CG, Debiasi M. Nerve conduits for treating peripheral nerve injuries: a systematic literature review. Hand Surg Rehabil 2017; 36 (02) 71-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zheng MH, Chen J, Kirilak Y, Willers C, Xu J, Wood D. Porcine small intestine submucosa (SIS) is not an acellular collagenous matrix and contains porcine DNA: possible implications in human implantation. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005; 73 (01) 61-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kim MS, Ahn HH, Shin YN, Cho MH, Khang G, Lee HB. An in vivo study of the host tissue response to subcutaneous implantation of PLGA- and/or porcine small intestinal submucosa-based scaffolds. Biomaterials 2007; 28 (34) 5137-5143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 2012; 9 (07) 671-675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hare GM, Evans PJ, Mackinnon SE. et al. Walking track analysis: a long-term assessment of peripheral nerve recovery. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992; 89 (02) 251-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sarikcioglu L, Demirel BM, Utuk A. Walking track analysis: an assessment method for functional recovery after sciatic nerve injury in the rat. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2009; 68 (01) 1-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hunter DA, Moradzadeh A, Whitlock EL. et al. Binary imaging analysis for comprehensive quantitative histomorphometry of peripheral nerve. J Neurosci Methods 2007; 166 (01) 116-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rushton WA. A theory of the effects of fibre size in medullated nerve. J Physiol 1951; 115 (01) 101-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Isaacs J, Mallu S, Yan W, Little B. Consequences of oversizing: nerve-to-nerve tube diameter mismatch. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (17) 1461-1467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Pertici V, Laurin J, Marqueste T, Decherchi P. Comparison of a collagen membrane versus a fibrin sealant after a peroneal nerve section and repair: a functional and histological study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2014; 156 (08) 1577-1590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lee JY, Parisi TJ, Friedrich PF, Bishop AT, Shin AY. Does the addition of a nerve wrap to a motor nerve repair affect motor outcomes?. Microsurgery 2014; 34 (07) 562-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Brenner MJ, Moradzadeh A, Myckatyn TM. et al. Role of timing in assessment of nerve regeneration. Microsurgery 2008; 28 (04) 265-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wang T, Ito A, Aoyama T. et al. Functional evaluation outcomes correlate with histomorphometric changes in the rat sciatic nerve crush injury model: a comparison between sciatic functional index and kinematic analysis. PLoS One 2018; 13 (12) e0208985
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Oliveira EF, Mazzer N, Barbieri CH, Selli M. Correlation between functional index and morphometry to evaluate recovery of the rat sciatic nerve following crush injury: experimental study. J Reconstr Microsurg 2001; 17 (01) 69-75
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Monte-Raso VV, Barbieri CH, Mazzer N, Yamasita AC, Barbieri G. Is the Sciatic Functional Index always reliable and reproducible?. J Neurosci Methods 2008; 170 (02) 255-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kehoe S, Zhang XF, Boyd D. FDA approved guidance conduits and wraps for peripheral nerve injury: a review of materials and efficacy. Injury 2012; 43 (05) 553-572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Magill CK, Tuffaha SH, Yee A. et al. The short- and long-term effects of Seprafilm on peripheral nerves: a histological and functional study. J Reconstr Microsurg 2009; 25 (06) 345-354
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Shintani K, Uemura T, Takamatsu K. et al. Protective effect of biodegradable nerve conduit against peripheral nerve adhesion after neurolysis. J Neurosurg 2018; 129 (03) 815-824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kim PD, Hayes A, Amin F, Akelina Y, Hays AP, Rosenwasser MP. Collagen nerve protector in rat sciatic nerve repair: a morphometric and histological analysis. Microsurgery 2010; 30 (05) 392-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Jordaan PW, Uhiara O, Power D. Management of the scarred nerve using porcine submucosa extracellular matrix nerve wraps. J Musculoskelet Surg Res 2019; 3 (01) 128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Zhu X, Wei H, Zhu H. Nerve wrap after end-to-end and tension-free neurorrhaphy attenuates neuropathic pain: a prospective study based on cohorts of digit replantation. Sci Rep 2018; 8 (01) 620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Zeng W, Osterman M, Stern PJ. Inflammatory reactions to xenogenic nerve wraps: a report of three cases. JBJS Case Connect 2019; 9 (03) e0302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar