Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38(09): 694-702
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1744274
Original Article

Resorbable Nerve Wraps: Can They Be Overtightened?

Celine F. Nicolas
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
,
John J. Corvi 
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
,
YuanDian Zheng
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
,
Katherine H. Park
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
,
Yelena Akelina
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
,
Anne Engemann
2   Axogen, Alachua, Florida
,
Robert J. Strauch
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Nerve wrapping has been advocated to minimize scarring and adhesion following neurorrhaphy or neurolysis. A wrap should provide an enclosure that is snug enough to protect and support the affected nerve without strangulating the nerve. The degree to which resorbable wraps should be “tightened” around the nerve is largely subjective with scant literature on the subject. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of tightly fitting resorbable nerve wraps around intact rat sciatic nerves.

Methods Twenty-four Sprague-Dawley rats underwent exposure and circumferential measurement of the right sciatic nerve. Porcine-derived extracellular matrix (ECM) wraps were trimmed and sutured to enclose the nerve with a tight (same as that of the nerve, n = 8) or loose (2.5x that of the nerve, n = 8) circumference. Sham-surgery control animals (n = 8) had no wrap treatment. Functional outcome was recorded biweekly by sciatic functional index (SFI) with walking track analysis and electrical stimulation. Animals were sacrificed at 12 weeks for histologic analyses.

Results No withdrawal response could be evoked in the tight-wrap group until week 9, while significant improvement in SFI first occurred between weeks 5 and 7. By week 12, the tight-wrap group required 60% more current compared with baseline stimulation to produce a withdrawal response. They recovered 81% of SFI baseline values but also demonstrated significantly greater intraneural collagen content (p < 0.001) and lower axon density (p < 0.05) than in the loose-wrap and sham groups. The loose-wrap group had comparable functional and histologic outcomes to the sham control group.

Conclusion Resorbable ECM nerve wraps applied tightly around intact rat sciatic nerves caused significant functional impairment and histological changes characteristic of acute nerve compression. Significant but incomplete functional recovery was achieved by the tight-wrap group after 12 weeks, but such recovery may not apply in humans.

Keywords

resorbable nerve wrap - nerve compression - nerve repair - neurolysis - rat sciatic nerve


Publication History

Received: 01 September 2021

Accepted: 30 January 2022

Article published online:
15 March 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Stocco E, Barbon S, Macchi V. et al. New bioresorbable wraps based on oxidized polyvinyl alcohol and leukocyte-fibrin-platelet membrane to support peripheral nerve neurorrhaphy: preclinical comparison versus NeuraWrap. Sci Rep 2019; 9 (01) 17193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kehoe S, Zhang XF, Boyd D. FDA approved guidance conduits and wraps for peripheral nerve injury: a review of materials and efficacy. Injury 2012; 43 (05) 553-572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Dy CJ, Aunins B, Brogan DM. Barriers to epineural scarring: role in treatment of traumatic nerve injury and chronic compressive neuropathy. J Hand Surg Am 2018; 43 (04) 360-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Fogli B, Corthout N, Kerstens A. et al. Imaging axon regeneration within synthetic nerve conduits. Sci Rep 2019; 9 (01) 10095
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wang T, Ito A, Aoyama T. et al. Functional evaluation outcomes correlate with histomorphometric changes in the rat sciatic nerve crush injury model: a comparison between sciatic functional index and kinematic analysis. PLoS One 2018; 13 (12) e0208985
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Babovic N, Klaus D, Schessler MJ. et al. Assessment of conduit-assisted primary nerve repair strength with varying suture size, number, and location. Hand (N Y) 2019; 14 (06) 735-740
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Moore AM, Kasukurthi R, Magill CK, Farhadi HF, Borschel GH, Mackinnon SE. Limitations of conduits in peripheral nerve repairs. Hand (N Y) 2009; 4 (02) 180-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Isaacs J, Mallu S, Yan W, Little B. Consequences of oversizing: nerve-to-nerve tube diameter mismatch. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (17) 1461-1467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Schmidhammer R, Zandieh S, Hopf R. et al. Alleviated tension at the repair site enhances functional regeneration: the effect of full range of motion mobilization on the regeneration of peripheral nerves–histologic, electrophysiologic, and functional results in a rat model. J Trauma 2004; 56 (03) 571-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mackinnon SE, Dellon AL, Hudson AR, Hunter DA. Chronic nerve compression–an experimental model in the rat. Ann Plast Surg 1984; 13 (02) 112-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Stensaas L, Bloch LM, Garcia R, Sotelo Jr J. Snug tubular enclosures reduce extrafascicular axonal escape at peripheral nerve repair sites. Exp Neurol 1989; 103 (02) 135-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kuljis RO, De Carolis V, Fernández V, Vincent O. Observations on the early mechanisms of severed nerve regeneration after compressive tubulation repair. Exp Neurol 1983; 80 (03) 708-725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Giusti G, Shin RH, Lee J-Y, Mattar TG, Bishop AT, Shin AY. The influence of nerve conduits diameter in motor nerve recovery after segmental nerve repair. Microsurgery 2014; 34 (08) 646-652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kline DG, Hayes GJ. The use of a resorbable wrapper for peripheral-nerve repair. Experimental studies in chimpanzees. J Neurosurg 1964; 21 (09) 737-750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lehman RA, Hayes GJ. Degeneration and regeneration in peripheral nerve. Brain 1967; 90 (02) 285-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Varejão ASP, Melo-Pinto P, Meek MF, Filipe VM, Bulas-Cruz J. Methods for the experimental functional assessment of rat sciatic nerve regeneration. Neurol Res 2004; 26 (02) 186-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bain JR, Mackinnon SE, Hunter DA. Functional evaluation of complete sciatic, peroneal, and posterior tibial nerve lesions in the rat. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 83 (01) 129-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Meek MF, Den Dunnen WFA, Schakenraad JM, Robinson PH. Long-term evaluation of functional nerve recovery after reconstruction with a thin-walled biodegradable poly (DL-lactide-ε-caprolactone) nerve guide, using walking track analysis and electrostimulation tests. Microsurgery 1999; 19 (05) 247-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Dijkstra JR, Meek MF, Robinson PH, Gramsbergen A. Methods to evaluate functional nerve recovery in adult rats: walking track analysis, video analysis and the withdrawal reflex. J Neurosci Methods 2000; 96 (02) 89-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lemke A, Penzenstadler C, Ferguson J. et al. A novel experimental rat model of peripheral nerve scarring that reliably mimics post-surgical complications and recurring adhesions. Dis Model Mech 2017; 10 (08) 1015-1025
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Shintani K, Uemura T, Takamatsu K. et al. Protective effect of biodegradable nerve conduit against peripheral nerve adhesion after neurolysis. J Neurosurg 2018; 129 (03) 815-824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kokkalis ZT, Mavrogenis AF, Ballas EG, Papagelopoulos PJ, Soucacos PN. Collagen nerve wrap for median nerve scarring. Orthopedics 2015; 38 (02) 117-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mathieu L, Adam C, Legagneux J, Bruneval P, Masmejean E. Reduction of neural scarring after peripheral nerve suture: an experimental study about collagen membrane and autologous vein wrapping. Chir Main 2012; 31 (06) 311-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Greene JJ, McClendon MT, Stephanopoulos N, Álvarez Z, Stupp SI, Richter C-P. Electrophysiological assessment of a peptide amphiphile nanofiber nerve graft for facial nerve repair. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2015; 344 (6188): 1173-1178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ducker TB, Hayes GJ. Experimental improvements in the use of Silastic cuff for peripheral nerve repair. J Neurosurg 1968; 28 (06) 582-587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 O'Brien JP, Mackinnon SE, MacLean AR, Hudson AR, Dellon AL, Hunter DA. A model of chronic nerve compression in the rat. Ann Plast Surg 1987; 19 (05) 430-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Williams LR, Varon S. Modification of fibrin matrix formation in situ enhances nerve regeneration in silicone chambers. J Comp Neurol 1985; 231 (02) 209-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Nihsen ES, Johnson CE, Hiles MC. Bioactivity of small intestinal submucosa and oxidized regenerated cellulose/collagen. Adv Skin Wound Care 2008; 21 (10) 479-486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tork S, Rd OR, Faleris J. et al. Application of a porcine SIS nerve cap for prevention of neuromas and associated pain. Tissue Eng Part A 2020; 26 (10) 1-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kokkalis ZT, Pu C, Small GA, Weiser RW, Venouziou AI, Sotereanos DG. Assessment of processed porcine extracellular matrix as a protective barrier in a rabbit nerve wrap model. J Reconstr Microsurg 2011; 27 (01) 19-28
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mackinnon SE, Dellon AL, Hudson AR, Hunter DA. Chronic human nerve compression–a histological assessment. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 1986; 12 (06) 547-565
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Weisl H, Osborne GV. The pathological changes in rats' nerves subject to moderate compression. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1964; 46: 297-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Jordaan PW, Uhiara O, Power D. Management of the scarred nerve using porcine submucosa extracellular matrix nerve wraps. J Musculoskelet Surg Res 2019; 3 (01) 128-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Smahel J, Meyer VE, Morgenthaler W. Silicone cuffs for peripheral nerve repair: experimental findings. J Reconstr Microsurg 1993; 9 (04) 293-297
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Mackinnon SE, O'Brien JP, Dellon AL, McLean AR, Hudson AR, Hunter DA. An assessment of the effects of internal neurolysis on a chronically compressed rat sciatic nerve. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 81 (02) 251-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Geremia NM, Gordon T, Brushart TM, Al-Majed AA, Verge VMK. Electrical stimulation promotes sensory neuron regeneration and growth-associated gene expression. Exp Neurol 2007; 205 (02) 347-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Battiston B, Geuna S, Ferrero M, Tos P. Nerve repair by means of tubulization: literature review and personal clinical experience comparing biological and synthetic conduits for sensory nerve repair. Microsurgery 2005; 25 (04) 258-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Mosconi T, Kruger L. Fixed-diameter polyethylene cuffs applied to the rat sciatic nerve induce a painful neuropathy: ultrastructural morphometric analysis of axonal alterations. Pain 1996; 64 (01) 37-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar