Cell and Organ Transplantology. 2025; 13(1):62-69 (e2025131178).
DOI: 10.22494/cot.v13i1.178
Dynamics of structural changes in sciatic nerve traction injury in rats: validation of a model for future preclinical studies on regenerative therapy
Vorodi M.1,2
, Vaslovych V.1
, Petriv T.1,3,4
, Vorobyov V.1, Velychko O.1, Malysheva T.1
, Tsymbaliuk V.5![]()
- 1The State Institution Romodanov Neurosurgery Institute National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine
- 2Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine
- 3LLC “Mediacal Biotechnology Company “Hemafund”, Kyiv Ukraine
- 4QR Health Solutions, Kyiv, Ukraine
- 5National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine
Abstract
Traction injuries of peripheral nerves are morphologically similar to combat-related trauma, where the kinetic energy of a wounding projectile causes nerve stretching and irreversible microscopic and ultrastructural changes, while the anatomical integrity remains preserved. The study of such changes is of critical importance in the context of regenerative technologies, especially under wartime conditions.
Aim. To assess morphological changes in the structure of peripheral nerves at different time points during recovery after experimental traction injury of the sciatic nerve in rats.
Materials and methods. A traction injury model of the sciatic nerve was modeled in 26 white outbred rats using a modified device. Animals were divided into two experimental groups based on the observation period: 15 days and 30 days after injury, and a control group of sham-operated rats (30 days). Morphometric analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of traction on the morphofunctional state of nerve fibers in the proximal and distal segments of the injured sciatic nerve. The density of stromal and parenchymal cells in both nerve segments was assessed.
Results. On day 15, the stroma/parenchyma ratio in the proximal segment of the sciatic nerve was 0.17 (0.155; 0.188), showing a statistically significant two-fold increase compared to the control group. In the distal segment, the ratio was 0.229 (0.206; 0.257), also representing a two-fold increase. No statistically significant difference was observed between the distal and proximal segments at this time point.
By day 30, the stroma/parenchyma ratio in the proximal segment was 0.124 (0.096; 0.148), with no statistically significant difference compared to the control group or the 15-day proximal group. In contrast, the distal segment showed a ratio of 0.228 (0.215; 0.261), which was 2.7 times higher than in the control group and 1.8 times higher than in the proximal segment at the same time point.
On day 15, endoneural accumulation of myelin breakdown products was observed, indicating active degenerative changes in nerve fibers. By day 30, a reduction in the number and size of myelin droplets in the distal segment, along with restored waviness and increased compactness of endoneural fibers, indicated stabilization of tissue architecture. However, persistent edema remained in the proximal segment, though signs of perineurial activation and a glio-mesodermal response suggested adaptive processes and the beginning of nerve trunk remodeling.
Сonclusion. Morphological analysis revealed distinct stages of change in the peripheral nerve following traction injury. On day 15, signs of Wallerian degeneration, edema, inflammatory responses, and activation of stromal cells and fibroblasts were evident. By day 30, inflammation had decreased and partial restoration of nerve fiber structure was observed, although degenerative changes and the risk of fibrosis persisted. Understanding the morphogenesis of these structural changes may help justify the optimal timing and extent of surgical intervention, including the use of regenerative therapies.
Key words: traction injury of peripheral nerve; experimental model; morphological changes; Wallerian degeneration
Full text PDF
| 1. Rickett T, Connell S, Bastijanic J, Hegde S, Shi R. Functional and mechanical evaluation of nerve stretch injury. J Med Syst. 2011;35(5):787-793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-010-9468-1 PMid:20703726 |
||||
| 2. Warner WS, Yeoh S, Light A, Zhang J, Mahan MA. Rapid-Stretch Injury to Peripheral Nerves: Histologic Results. Neurosurgery. 2020;86(3):437-445. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyz194 PMid:31140562 |
||||
| 3. Mahan MA, Yeoh S, Monson K, Light A. Rapid Stretch Injury to Peripheral Nerves: Biomechanical Results. Neurosurgery. 2019;85(1):E137-E144. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyy423 PMid:30383240 |
||||
| 4. Mahan MA, Warner WS, Yeoh S, Light A. Rapid-stretch injury to peripheral nerves: implications from an animal model. J Neurosurg. 2019;133(5):1537-1547. Published 2019 Oct 4. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.6.JNS19511 PMid:31585426 |
||||
| 5. Yeoh S, Warner WS, Bromberg M, Mahan MA. Retrograde labeling correlates with motor unit number estimation in rapid-stretch nerve injury. Muscle Nerve. 2023;67(2):169-176. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.27756 PMid:36420650 |
||||
| 6. Manzanera Esteve IV, Pollins AC, Nussenbaum ME, et al. Longitudinal traumatic peripheral nerve injury recovery: quantitative description, classification and prediction. Regen Med. 2023;18(5):389-397. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2023-0011 PMid:37158365 |
||||
| 7. Davis GA. Reflections on the History of Nerve Repair – Sir Sydney Sunderland’s Final Presentation to the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia. Neurosurgery. 2020;87(3):E373-E382. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyaa059 PMid:32255474 |
||||
| 8. Sunderland S. The anatomy and physiology of nerve injury. Muscle Nerve. 1990;13(9):771-784. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.880130903 PMid:2233864 |
||||
| 9. Stonner MM, Mackinnon SE, Kaskutas V. Predictors of functional outcome after peripheral nerve injury and compression. J Hand Ther. 2021;34(3):369-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2020.03.008 PMid:32334939 |
||||
| 10. 10.Mathieu L, Goncalves M, Murison JC, Pfister G, Oberlin C, Belkheyar Z. Ballistic peripheral nerve injuries: basic concepts, controversies, and proposal for a management strategy. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022;48(5):3529-3539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-022-01929-8 PMid:35262748 |
||||
| 11. Tsymbaliuk VI, Strafun SS, Tretyak IB, et al. Surgical treatment of peripheral nerves combat wounds of the extremities. Wiad Lek. 2021;74(3 cz 2):619-624. https://doi.org/10.36740/WLek202103210 PMid:33843623 |
||||
| 12. Nelson CN, Glauser G, Kessler RA, Jack MM. Causalgia: a military pain syndrome. Neurosurg Focus. 2022;53(3):E9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2022.6.FOCUS22270 PMid:36052635 |
||||
| 13. Geraschenko SB. Peripheral nerve (neuro-vascular-desmal relationships in normal and pathology): Monography. Ternopil: Ukrmedknyha. 2005. | ||||
| 14. Goyko OV. Practical use of the STATISTICA package for the analysis of medical and biological data: training. Manual. Kyiv. NMAPO named after P. JI. Shupyk. 2004. 76 p. | ||||
| 15. Zhang WJ, Pi XW, Hu DX, Liu XP, Wu MM. Advances and challenges in cell therapy for neuropathic pain based on mesenchymal stem cells. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2025 Feb 21;13:1536566. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2025.1536566 PMid:40061013 PMCid:PMC11885280 |
||||
| 16. Joshi HP, Jo HJ, Kim YH, An SB, Park CK, Han I. Stem Cell Therapy for Modulating Neuroinflammation in Neuropathic Pain. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 May 3;22(9):4853. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094853 PMid:34063721 PMCid:PMC8124149 |
||||
| 17. Duan XH, Cheng LN, Zhang F, et al. In vivo MRI monitoring nerve regeneration of acute peripheral nerve traction injury following mesenchymal stem cell transplantation. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(9):2154-2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.06.050 PMid:21726973 |
||||
| 18. Cheng LN, Duan XH, Zhong XM, et al. Transplanted neural stem cells promote nerve regeneration in acute peripheral nerve traction injury: assessment using MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(6):1381-1387. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5495 PMid:21606303 |
||||
Vorodi M, Vaslovych V, Petriv T, Vorobyov V, Velychko O, Malysheva T, Tsymbaliuk V. Dynamics of structural changes in sciatic nerve traction injury in rats: validation of a model for future preclinical studies on regenerative therapy. Cell Organ Transpl. 2025; 13(1):62-69 (e2025131178). doi: https://doi.org/10.22494/cot.v13i1.178

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

