Increasing nerve autograft length increases senescence and reduces regeneration
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, ISSN: 0032-1052, Vol: 142, Issue: 4, Page: 952-961
2018
- 56Citations
- 51Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations56
- Citation Indexes56
- 56
- CrossRef46
- Captures51
- Readers51
- 51
Article Description
Background: Nerve grafting with an autograft is considered the gold standard. However, the functional outcomes of long (>3 cm) nerve autografting are often poor. The authors hypothesized that a factor contributing to these outcomes is the graft microenvironment, where long compared to short autografts support axon regeneration to different extents. Methods: A rat sciatic nerve defect model was used to compare regeneration in short (2 cm) and long (6 cm) isografts. Axon regeneration and cell populations within grafts were assessed using histology, retrograde labeling of neurons regenerating axons, immunohistochemistry, quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, and electron microscopy at 4 and/or 8 weeks. Results: At 8 weeks, for distances of both 1 and 2 cm from the proximal coaptation (equivalent regenerative distance), long isografts had reduced numbers of regenerated fibers compared with short isografts. Similarly, the number of motoneurons regenerating axons was reduced in the presence of long isografts compared with short isografts. Considering the regenerative microenvironments between short and long isografts, cell densities and general populations within both short and long isografts were similar. However, long isografts had significantly greater expression of senescence markers, which included senescence-associated β-galactosidase, p21, and p16, and distinct chromatin changes within Schwann cells. Conclusions: This study shows that axon regeneration is reduced in long compared with short isografts, where long isografts contained an environment with an increased accumulation of senescent markers. Although autografts are considered the gold standard for grafting, these results demonstrate that we must continue to strive for improvements in the autograft regenerative environment.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85056835765&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004759; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29994844; https://journals.lww.com/00006534-201810000-00022; http://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00006534-201810000-00022; https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00006534-201810000-00022
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know