RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although electrical stimulation (ES) can improve nerve regeneration, the impact of nerve block, such as lidocaine (Lido), on the therapeutic benefits of ES remains unclear. We used a rat tibial nerve transection-and-repair model to explore how either preoperative (PreOp) or postoperative (PostOp) nerve block affects ES-related improvement in regeneration. METHODS: Lewis rats were used in 1 of 2 studies. The first evaluated the effects of extraneural Lido on both healthy and injured nerves. In the second study, rats were randomized to 5 experimental groups: No ES (negative control), PreOp Lido, ES + PreOp Lido, PostOp + ES, and ES (positive control). All groups underwent tibial nerve transection and repair. In both studies, nerves were harvested for histological analysis of regeneration distal to the injury site. RESULTS: Application of extraneural Lido did not damage healthy or injured nerve based on qualitative histological observations. In the context of nerve transection and repair, the ES group exhibited improved axon regeneration at 21 days measured by the total number of myelinated fibers compared with No ES. Fiber density and percentage of neural tissue in the ES group were greater than those in both No ES and PreOp Lido + ES groups. ES + PostOp Lido was not different from No ES or ES group. CONCLUSIONS: Extraneural application of Lido did not damage nerves. Electrical stimulation augmented nerve regeneration, but Lido diminished the ES-related improvement in nerve regeneration. Clinical studies on the effects of ES to nerve regeneration may need to consider nerve block as a variable affecting ES outcome.
Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Lidocaína , Animais , Ratos , Axônios/fisiologia , Lidocaína/farmacologia , Regeneração Nervosa/fisiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Repair of nerve injuries can fail to achieve adequate functional recovery. Electrical stimulation applied at the time of nerve repair can accelerate axon regeneration, which may improve the likelihood of recovery. However, widespread use of electrical stimulation may be limited by treatment protocols that increase operative time and complexity. This study evaluated whether a short-duration electrical stimulation protocol (10 minutes) was efficacious to enhance regeneration following nerve repair using rat models. METHODS: Lewis and Thy1-green fluorescent protein rats were randomized to three groups: 0 minutes of electrical stimulation (no electrical stimulation; control), 10 minutes of electrical stimulation, and 60 minutes of electrical stimulation. All groups underwent tibial nerve transection and repair. In the intervention groups, electrical stimulation was delivered after nerve repair. Outcomes were assessed using immunohistochemistry, histology, and serial walking track analysis. RESULTS: Two weeks after nerve repair, Thy1-green fluorescent protein rats demonstrated increased green fluorescent protein-positive axon outgrowth from the repair site with electrical stimulation compared to no electrical stimulation. Serial measurement of walking tracks after nerve repair revealed recovery was achieved more rapidly in both electrical stimulation groups as compared to no electrical stimulation. Histologic analysis of nerve distal to the repair at 8 weeks revealed robust axon regeneration in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: As little as 10 minutes of intraoperative electrical stimulation therapy increased early axon regeneration and facilitated functional recovery following nerve transection with repair. Also, as early axon outgrowth increased following electrical stimulation with nerve repair, these findings suggest electrical stimulation facilitated recovery because of earlier axon growth across the suture-repaired site into the distal nerve to reach end-organ targets. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Brief (10-minute) electrical stimulation therapy can provide similar benefits to the 60-minute protocol in an acute sciatic nerve transection/repair rat model and merit further studies, as they represent a translational advantage.