Estimulação elétrica com correntes de média frequência na regeneração nervosa periférica após neurorrafia látero-terminal do nervo fibular comum de ratos
Carregando...
Data
2017-03-02
Autores
Bortoluci, Carlos Henrique Fachin [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
Introdução: lesões nervosas periféricas podem levar à perda funcional importante para o paciente. Assim, muitas pesquisas buscam aprimorar técnicas cirúrgicas e tratamentos pós-cirúrgicos com a finalidade de minimizar a perda funcional do paciente. Os nervos periféricos estão sujeitos as doenças inflamatórias, traumáticas, metabólicas, tóxicas, genéticas e neoplásicas. Essas doenças levam a diferentes tipos e graus de lesões. Objetivo: comparar a eficiência da estimulação elétrica com correntes de média frequência (Russa e Aussie) na regeneração nervosa periférica após neurorrafia látero-terminal do nervo fibular comum de ratos. Metodologia: os 120 animais foram divididos em 11 grupos experimentais, subdividos em dois grandes grupos, um de 45 dias e outro de 90 dias: Grupo Controle Inicial (GCI) com 8 animais; Grupo Neurorrafia Látero-Terminal (GNLT45) com 8 animais; Grupo Estimulação Aussie (GEA45) com 16 animais; Grupo Estimulação Russa (GER45) com 16 animais; Grupo Desnervado (GD45) com 8 animais; Grupo Controle Final (GCF45) com 8 animais; Grupo Neurorrafia Látero-Terminal (GNLT90) com 8 animais; Grupo Estimulação Aussie (GEA90) com 16 animais; Grupo Estimulação Russa (GER90) com 16 animais; Grupo Desnervado (GD90) com 8 animais; Grupo Controle Final (GCF90) com 8 animais. A estimulação elétrica com Corrente Aussie e Russa teve início com cinco dias de pós-operatório. Os animais dos grupos (GEA45, GEA90, GER45 e GER90) foram submetidos a três sessões semanais, com dias alternados, durante os 45 e 90 dias, totalizando 18 e 36. As correntes foram moduladas em 30 e 100Hz, para recrutarem os dois tipos de fibras musculares (I e II) respectivamente. Resultados: os grupos eletroestimulados tiveram resultados estatisticamente significantes quando comparados aos grupos que não receberam estimulação elétrica, tanto nos aspectos morfológicos, como no aspecto funcional. Conclusão: a estimulação elétrica utilizada no presente estudo foi eficiente na regeneração do nervo fibular comum de ratos após neurorrafia látero-terminal, mas sem diferença significante entre ambas as correntes utilizadas (Aussie versus Russa). Porém, houve diferença significativa em relação ao tempo de eletroestimulação (45 versus 90 dias), mostrando que um maior tempo de tratamento promove melhores resultados.
Introduction: peripheral nerve damage can lead to significant functional loss for the patient. Thus, many researchers have sought to improve surgical techniques and post-surgical treatments in order to minimize the patient´s functional loss. Peripheral nerves are subject to inflammatory, traumatic, metabolic, toxic, genetic and neoplastic diseases. These diseases lead to different types and degrees of injury. Objective: to compare the efficiency of the electrical stimulation with medium frequency currents in peripheral nerve regeneration after end-to-side neurorrhaphy of the common fibular nerve in rats. Methodology: 120 animals were allocated into 11 experimental groups, subdivided into two big groups, the first one consisting of 45 days and the second one with 90 days: Initial Control Group (ICG) with 8 animals; End-to-Side Neurorrhaphy Group (GNLT45) with 8 animals; Aussie Stimulation Group (GEA45) with 16 animals; Russian Stimulation Group (GER45) with 16 animals; Denervated Group (GD45) with 8 animals; Final Control Group (GCF45) with 8 animals; End-to-Side Neurorrhaphy Group (GNLT90) with 8 animals; Aussie Stimulation Group (GEA90) with 16 animals; Russian Stimulation Group (GER90) with 16 animals; Denervated Group (GD90) with 8 animals; Final Control Group (GCF 90) with 8 animals. Electrical stimulation by Aussie and Russian currents started with five post-operative days. The animals of the groups (GEA45, GEA90, GER45 and GER90) were treated three times a week in alternating days, during 45 and 90 days, totaling 18 and 36 sessions, respectively. The electrical currents were modulated in 30 and 100Hz to recruit both types of fibers (I and II), respectively. Results: the treated groups had statistical significant results when compared to groups that did not receive electrical stimulation regarding both morphological and functional aspects. Conclusion: the electrical stimulation used in this present study was efficient in regeneration of the common fibular nerve in rats after end-to-side neurorrhaphy, but without a significant difference between both currents used (Aussie versus Russian). However, there was a significant difference related to the time of electrical stimulation (45 versus 90 days), showing that long periods of treatment promote better results.
Introduction: peripheral nerve damage can lead to significant functional loss for the patient. Thus, many researchers have sought to improve surgical techniques and post-surgical treatments in order to minimize the patient´s functional loss. Peripheral nerves are subject to inflammatory, traumatic, metabolic, toxic, genetic and neoplastic diseases. These diseases lead to different types and degrees of injury. Objective: to compare the efficiency of the electrical stimulation with medium frequency currents in peripheral nerve regeneration after end-to-side neurorrhaphy of the common fibular nerve in rats. Methodology: 120 animals were allocated into 11 experimental groups, subdivided into two big groups, the first one consisting of 45 days and the second one with 90 days: Initial Control Group (ICG) with 8 animals; End-to-Side Neurorrhaphy Group (GNLT45) with 8 animals; Aussie Stimulation Group (GEA45) with 16 animals; Russian Stimulation Group (GER45) with 16 animals; Denervated Group (GD45) with 8 animals; Final Control Group (GCF45) with 8 animals; End-to-Side Neurorrhaphy Group (GNLT90) with 8 animals; Aussie Stimulation Group (GEA90) with 16 animals; Russian Stimulation Group (GER90) with 16 animals; Denervated Group (GD90) with 8 animals; Final Control Group (GCF 90) with 8 animals. Electrical stimulation by Aussie and Russian currents started with five post-operative days. The animals of the groups (GEA45, GEA90, GER45 and GER90) were treated three times a week in alternating days, during 45 and 90 days, totaling 18 and 36 sessions, respectively. The electrical currents were modulated in 30 and 100Hz to recruit both types of fibers (I and II), respectively. Results: the treated groups had statistical significant results when compared to groups that did not receive electrical stimulation regarding both morphological and functional aspects. Conclusion: the electrical stimulation used in this present study was efficient in regeneration of the common fibular nerve in rats after end-to-side neurorrhaphy, but without a significant difference between both currents used (Aussie versus Russian). However, there was a significant difference related to the time of electrical stimulation (45 versus 90 days), showing that long periods of treatment promote better results.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Neurorrafia látero-terminal, Estimulação elétrica, Nervo fibular comum, Ratos, End-to-side neurorrhaphy, Electric stimulation, Peroneal nerve, Rats