Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research ›› 2015, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (40): 6553-6560.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2015.40.029

Previous Articles    

The systematic evaluation of establishing spinal cord transection model in rats

Jin Xin1, Zhou Bin-bin2, Li Bo-lin1 Yang Cheng-cheng2, Zhang Hong-sheng3   

  1. 1Post-graduate Class of 2013, 3Post-graduate Class of 2012, Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanning 530001, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China; 2the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanning 530001, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
  • Online:2015-09-30 Published:2015-09-30
  • Contact: Zhou Bin-bin, Professor, Chief physician, Master’s supervisor, Post-graduate Class of 2012, Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanning 530001, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
  • About author:Jin Xin, Studying for master’s degree, Post-graduate Class of 2013, Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanning 530001, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
  • Supported by:

    the National Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 81460746

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Establishing a highly successful, safe, reliable standard spinal cord transection model is the precondition of studying spinal cord injury repair.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of preparing spinal cord transection model in rats and the effects of laminectomy on spinal cord.

METHODS: We searched the randomized controlled trials involving rat models of spinal cord transection in the databases of PubMed, CNKI, VIP and WanFang.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria (two in English, 9 in Chinese), and a total of 394 rats were included in the study. There were significant differences in the lower limb motor function scores (BBB scores) within 1-6 weeks after injury (WMD=-12.86, 95%CI -16.10 to -9.62, P < 0.01) and electrophysiological indices within 4 weeks after injury (WMD=15.36, 95%CI 11.36 to 19.36, P < 0.01) between spinal cord hemisection group and laminectomy group. The BBB scores after 6 weeks were not significantly different between these two groups (WMD=-10.28; 95%CI -24.20 to 3.64; P=0.15). There were significant differences in the lower limb motor function scores (BBB scores) within 1-6 weeks after injury (WMD= -18.83, 95% CI -20.64 to -17.01, P < 0.01) and electrophysiological indices within 4 weeks after injury (WMD= -11.21, 95%CI -16.35 to -6.08, P < 0.01) between spinal cord transection group and laminectomy group. No significant differences were found in BBB scores (WMD= -0.00, 95%CI -0.01 to 0.01, P=1) and electrophysiological indices (WMD=0.43, 95%CI -0.35 to 1.21, P=0.28) within 4 weeks after injury between laminectomy group and normal group. There was no significant difference in the number of deaths between spinal cord hemisection group and laminectomy group (RD=0.05, 95%CI -0.03 to 0.13; P=0.26). Experimental findings indicate that spinal cord transection is a method of inducing spinal cord injury with good stability, strong replication and high survival rate. But transection accuracy, postoperative care and designation of control group remain open to question.   

Key words: Spinal Cord, Spinal Cord injury, Animal Model, Laminectomy

CLC Number: