Premium
Comparing electrical stimulation and tacrolimus (FK506) to enhance treating nerve injuries
Author(s) -
Jo Sally,
Pan Deng,
Halevi Alexandra E.,
Roh Joseph,
Schellhardt Lauren,
Hunter RA Daniel A.,
SnyderWarwick Alison K.,
Moore Amy M.,
Mackin Susan E.,
Wood Matthew D.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
muscle and nerve
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.025
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1097-4598
pISSN - 0148-639X
DOI - 10.1002/mus.26659
Subject(s) - medicine , context (archaeology) , stimulation , anesthesia , regeneration (biology) , nerve injury , surgery , tacrolimus , allodynia , nerve repair , hyperalgesia , anatomy , nociception , transplantation , peripheral nerve , biology , paleontology , receptor , microbiology and biotechnology
Neuroenhancing therapies are desired because repair of nerve injuries can fail to achieve recovery. We compared two neuroenhancing therapies, electrical stimulation (ES) and systemic tacrolimus (FK506), for their capabilities to enhance regeneration in the context of a rat model. Methods Rats were randomized to four groups: ES 0.5 mA, ES 2.0 mA, FK506, and repair alone. All groups underwent tibial nerve transection and repair, and outcomes were assessed by using twice per week walking track analysis, cold allodynia response, relative muscle mass, and nerve histology. Results Electrical stimulation and FK506 groups demonstrated improved functional recovery and myelinated axon counts distal to the repair compared with repair alone. Electrical stimulation provided improvements in nerve regeneration that were not different from optimized FK506 systemic administration. Discussion Providing ES after nerve repair improved regeneration and recovery in rats, with minimal differences in therapeutic efficacy to FK506, further demonstrating its clinical potential to improve management of nerve injuries.