Application of sciatic functional index in nerve functional assessment

Abstract

In order to confirm the reliability of the sciatic functional index (SFI) in the rat, SFI, muscle strength, electrophysiological, and morphometric assessments were carried out from the 10th day to the sixth month after nerve injury or repair. The results showed that the SFI has a positive correlation with all tested indices of muscle strength, electrophysiology, and morphology (r = 0.925-0.996, P < 0.01 or P < 0.001). These results indicate that the SFI is a reliable index for evaluating rat sciatic nerve regeneration and can be widely used.

Evaluation of biodegradable electric conductive tube-guides and mesenchymal stem cells

“…The morphological evaluation together with functional data has been used to assess neural regeneration after induced neurotmesis injuries, but some subjective evaluation, depending on the operator/research analysis is observed [9] . Some methods for evaluation of nerve recovery, like peroxidase and retrograde fluorescent labeling, histomorphometry, and retrograde transport of horseradish [47,56] fail in assessing the functional recovery, which is essential to evaluate the success of a scaffold application [57,58] . The present experimental work includes a variety of independent evaluation tools considering the morphologic and functional recovery, in order to understand and estimate the potential therapeutic benefit of a nerve repair strategy [9] .…”

Local Administration of Nimodipine and Improvement of Functional Recovery of the Transected Sciatic Nerve after Bridging with Inside-out Artery Graft

“…At week 12 quantitative morphometrical indices of regenerated nerve fibers showed significant differences between the IOAG and IOAG/Nimodipine groups, indicating 264 a beneficial effect of topical application of nimodipine on the nerve regeneration. Although both morphological and functional data have been used to assess neural regeneration after induced crush injuries, the correlation between these two types of assessment is usually poor (Dellon and Mackinnon 1989;Kanaya et al, 1996;Shen and Zhu 1995).…”

“…Classical and newly developed methods of assessing nerve recovery, including histomorphometry, retrograde transport of horseradish peroxidase and retrograde fluorescent labeling do not necessarily predict the reestablishment of motor and sensory functions (Shen and Zhu 1995;Almquist and Eeg-Olofssn 1970;De Medinaceli et al, 1989;Mackinnon 1985;Varej˜ao et al, 2004). Although such techniques are useful in studying the nerve regeneration process, they generally fail in assessing functional recovery (Shen and Zhu 1995).…”

“…Although such techniques are useful in studying the nerve regeneration process, they generally fail in assessing functional recovery (Shen and Zhu 1995). Therefore, research on peripheral nerve injury needs to combine both functional and morphological assessment.…”

“…Thereafter, the proximal stump gradually regrows, fostered by the neural cell surface molecule of the trans membrane glycoprotein Ll, nerve cell adhesion molecule (N-CAM), myelinassociated glycoprotein PO, and the extracellular matrix components laminin and tenascin (Martini 1994). The regenerating axons are guided by the Schwann cell processes and their growth within the Schwann cell basal lamina tubes is synchronous with the withdrawal and degeneration of the axonal remnants of the distal stump (Fawcett and Keynes 1990;Son and Thompson 1995a;Son and Thompson 1995b).…”