Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMed

Combination of a Gellan Gum-Based Hydrogel With Cell Therapy for the Treatment of Cervical Spinal Cord Injury.

Gomes ED., Ghosh B., Lima R., Goulão M., Moreira-Gomes T., Martins-Macedo J.

Laboratory Study on Spinal Cord Injury, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2020) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2020)
Country
Switzerland
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
32984278
DOI
10.3389/fbioe.2020.00984

Abstract (original English)

Cervical spinal cord trauma represents more than half of the spinal cord injury (SCI) cases worldwide. Respiratory compromise, as well as severe limb motor deficits, are among the main consequences of cervical lesions. In the present work, a Gellan Gum (GG)-based hydrogel modified with GRGDS peptide, together with adipose tissue-derived stem/stromal cells (ASCs) and olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs), was used as a therapeutic strategy after a C2 hemisection SCI in rats. Hydrogel or cells alone, and a group without treatment, were also tested. Four weeks after injury, compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) were performed to assess functional phrenic motor neuron (PhMN) innervation of the diaphragm; no differences were observed amongst groups, confirming that the PhMN pool located between C3 and C5 was not affected by the C2 injury or by the treatments. In the same line, the vast majority of diaphragmatic neuromuscular junctions remained intact. Five weeks post-injury, inspiratory bursting of the affected ipsilateral hemidiaphragm was evaluated through EMG recordings of dorsal, medial and ventral subregions of the muscle. All treatments significantly increased EMG amplitude at the ventral portion in comparison to untreated animals, but only the combinatorial group presented increased EMG amplitude at the medial portion of the hemidiaphragm. No differences were observed in for

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research