Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesAnimal StudyEurope PMC

Electrophysiological and histopathological effects of mesenchymal stem cells in treatment of experimental rat model of sciatic nerve injury

Yarar E., Kuruoglu E., Kocabıcak E., Altun A., Genc E., Ozyurek H.

Animal Study on Scar, published in Int J Clin Exp Med (2015) — 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
Animal Study
Journal
Int J Clin Exp Med (2015)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
26309529
PMCID
PMC4537965
Citations
11

Abstract (original English)

Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate electrophysiological and histopathological effects of mesenchymal stem cells in treatment of sciatic nerve injury. Material and methods Thirty-two female Spraque-Dawley rat were used in this study. Eight rats were used as a reference group in electrophysiological analysis for evaluation of non-injured nerve recordings (Control Group). Twenty-four rats were used for experimental evaluation. Twelve rats were anastomosed without treatment with mesenchymal stem cells (Sham Group) and twelve other rats were anastomosed and treated with mesenchymal stem cells (Stem Cell Group). Surgicel and bioglue were used in anastomosed line in both Groups. Eight weeks after the surgery, electrophysiological evaluation of rats was performed and, then, rats were decapitated under anesthesia and specimens including sciatic nerves and anastomosed line were taken for histopathological evaluation. Electromyography and nerve conduction velocity testing and histopathological scoring including rate of Wallerian degeneration, and neuroma and scar formation were evaluated for both Groups. Results There were no statistically significant differences between Sham and Stem Cell Groups with respect to histopathological evaluation. However, nerve conduction velocity showed significant difference between groups (P = 0.001). Nerve conduction velocity was significantly impro

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