Highlights d Rapid establishment of glioblastoma organoids (GBOs) in a defined medium with biobank d GBOs maintain parental tumor cellular heterogeneity, gene expression, and mutations d GBO transplantation exhibits efficient engraftment and aggressive infiltration d Tumor-specific treatment responses in GBOs to drugs and CART cells

The evaluation and management of hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating neck injury has evolved considerably over the previous four decades. Algorithms developed in the 1970s focused on anatomic neck “zones” to distinguish triage pathways resulting from the operative constraints associated with very high or very low penetrations. During that era, mandatory endoscopy and angiography for Zone I and III penetrations, or mandatory neck exploration for Zone II injuries, became popularized, the so-called “selective approach.” Currently, modern sensitive imaging technology, including computed tomographic angiography (CTA), is widely available. Imaging triage can now accomplish what operative or selective evaluation could not: a safe and noninvasive evaluation of critical neck structures to identify or exclude injury based on trajectory, the key to penetrating injury management. In this review, we discuss the use of CTA in modern screening algorithms introducing a “No Zone” paradigm: an evidence-based method eliminating “neck zone” differentiation during triage and management. We conclude that a comprehensive physical examination, combined with CTA, is adequate for triage to effectively identify or exclude vascular and aerodigestive injury after penetrating neck trauma. Zone-based algorithms lead to an increased reliance on invasive diagnostic modalities (endoscopy and angiography) with their associated risks and to a higher incidence of nontherapeutic neck exploration. Therefore, surgeons evaluating hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating neck injuries should consider departing from antiquated, invasive algorithms in favor of evidence-based screening strategies that use physical examination and CTA.

The ideal neuroprosthetic interface permits high-quality neural recording and stimulation of the nervous system while reliably providing clinical benefits over chronic periods. Although current technologies have made notable strides in this direction, significant improvements must be made to better achieve these design goals and satisfy clinical needs. This article provides an overview of the state of neuroprosthetic interfaces, starting with the design and placement of these interfaces before exploring the stimulation and recording platforms yielded from contemporary research. Finally, we outline emerging research trends in an effort to explore the potential next generation of neuroprosthetic interfaces.

BACKGROUND Millions of Americans experience residual deficits from traumatic peripheral nerve injury (PNI). Despite advancements in surgical technique, repair typically results in poor functional outcomes due to prolonged periods of denervation resulting from long regenerative distances coupled with slow rates of axonal regeneration. Novel surgical solutions require valid preclinical models that adequately replicate the key challenges of clinical PNI. OBJECTIVE To develop a preclinical model of PNI in swine that addresses 2 challenging, clinically relevant PNI scenarios: long segmental defects (≥5 cm) and ultra-long regenerative distances (20-27 cm). Thus, we aim to demonstrate that a porcine model of major PNI is suitable as a potential framework to evaluate novel regenerative strategies prior to clinical deployment. METHODS A 5-cm-long common peroneal nerve or deep peroneal nerve injury was repaired using a saphenous nerve or sural nerve autograft, respectively. Histological and electrophysiological assessments were performed at 9 to 12 mo post repair to evaluate nerve regeneration and functional recovery. Relevant anatomy, surgical approach, and functional/histological outcomes were characterized for both repair techniques. RESULTS Axons regenerated across the repair zone and were identified in the distal stump. Electrophysiological recordings confirmed these findings and suggested regenerating axons reinnervated target muscles. CONCLUSION The models presented herein provide opportunities to investigate peripheral nerve regeneration using different nerves tailored for specific mechanisms of interest, such as nerve modality (motor, sensory, and mixed fiber composition), injury length (short/long gap), and total regenerative distance (proximal/distal injury).