Conditioning Electrical Stimulation Is Superior to Postoperative Electrical Stimulation in Enhanced Regeneration and Functional Recovery Following Nerve Graft Repair.

Background. Autologous nerve graft is the most common clinical intervention for repairing a nerve gap. However, its regenerative capacity is decreased in part because, unlike a primary repair, the regenerating axons must traverse 2 repair sites. Means to promote nerve regeneration across a graft are needed. Postoperative electrical stimulation (PES) improves nerve growth by reducing staggered regeneration at the coaptation site whereas conditioning electrical stimulation (CES) accelerates axon extension. In this study, we directly compared these electrical stimulation paradigms in a model of nerve autograft repair. Methods. To lay the foundation for clinical translation, regeneration and reinnervation outcomes of CES and PES in a 5-mm nerve autograft model were compared. Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into: (a) CES, (b) PES, and (c) no stimulation cohorts. CES was delivered 1 week prior to nerve cut/coaptation, and PES was delivered immediately following coaptation. Length of nerve regeneration (n = 6/cohort), and behavioral testing (n = 16/cohort) were performed at 14 days and 6 to 14 weeks post-coaptation, respectively. Results. CES treated axons extended 5.9 ± 0.2 mm, significantly longer than PES (3.8 ± 0.2 mm), or no stimulation (2.5 ± 0.2 mm) (P < .01). Compared with PES animals, the CES animals had significantly improved sensory recovery (von Frey filament testing, intraepidermal nerve fiber reinnervation) (P < .001) and motor reinnervation (horizontal ladder, gait analysis, nerve conduction studies, neuromuscular junction analysis) (P < .01). Conclusion. CES resulted in faster regeneration through the nerve graft and improved sensorimotor recovery compared to all other cohorts. It is a promising treatment to improve outcomes in patients undergoing nerve autograft repair.

Conditioning electrical stimulation promotes functional nerve regeneration.

Peripheral nerve regeneration following injury is often incomplete, resulting in significant personal and socioeconomic costs. Although a conditioning crush lesion prior to surgical nerve transection and repair greatly promotes nerve regeneration and functional recovery, feasibility and ethical considerations have hindered its clinical applicability. In a recent proof of principle study, we demonstrated that conditioning electrical stimulation (CES) had effects on early nerve regeneration, similar to that seen in conditioning crush lesions (CCL). To convincingly determine its clinical utility, establishing the effects of CES on target reinnervation and functional outcomes is of utmost importance. In this study, we found that CES improved nerve regeneration and reinnervation well beyond that of CCL. Specifically, compared to CCL, CES resulted in greater intraepidermal skin and NMJ reinnervation, and greater physiological and functional recovery including mechanosensation, compound muscle action potential on nerve conduction studies, normalization of gait pattern, and motor performance on the horizontal ladder test. These findings have direct clinical relevance as CES could be delivered at the bedside before scheduled nerve surgery.