The Effect of Subepineural Platelet-rich Plasma on Regeneration of the Sciatic Nerve in a Rat Model

Background: Peripheral nerve injury is one of the most challenging of modern surgical problem. Recent advances in understanding the physiological and molecular pathways demonstrated the important role of growth factors in peripheral nerve regeneration. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a biological prod...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Hand (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2016-09, Vol.11 (1_suppl), p.86S-86S
Hauptverfasser: Fatemi, Mohammad Javad, Nasab, Mohammad Reza Akhoondi, Forghani, Siamak Farokh, Pakfetrat, Farzin, Mansouri, Kourosh, Niazi, Mitra
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Peripheral nerve injury is one of the most challenging of modern surgical problem. Recent advances in understanding the physiological and molecular pathways demonstrated the important role of growth factors in peripheral nerve regeneration. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a biological product that has many growth factors. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of PRP in the regeneration of sciatic nerve crush in the rat model. Methods: In this experimental study that established in the animal lab of the Hazrat Fatemeh Hospital in Tehran during September to October 2013, 24 healthy male Sprague-Dawley rats (200-250 g) were randomly divided into two groups. In all rats, the sciatic nerve was cut and then carefully repaired by the tension free method under a light microscope. In group 1, after the repair, 0.05 µL of PRP was injected below the epineurium to the proximal and distal parts of the repaired area. In group 2, the same amount of normal saline was injected to the proximal and distal of the repaired area. After 6 weeks footprint analysis, neurophysiologic and histopathology evaluations were performed. Results: Significant differences existed between the two groups footprint analysis (P = .001). Also the nerve conduction latency test was significantly shorter in PRP group (1.0233 ms in PRP group and 1.7375 ms in control; P < .001). The average amplitude in the first group and the second group was 7.6250 mv (control) and 6.3667 mv that does not show a statistically significant difference (P = .093). Significant differences between the two groups in the number of axons of the proximal portion of the study were not seen (P = .29). The parameters included number of axons of the proximal and the distal part of axons, the diameter of the distal and proximal axons in the two groups was compared. In the two groups, there was statistically significant difference between the above parameters (P = .298). Conclusion: It seems that PRP may have an important role in peripheral nerve regeneration and functional recovery after nerve laceration and repair. Further clinical evaluation is recommended.
ISSN:1558-9447
1558-9455
DOI:10.1177/1558944716660555fh