6533b85bfe1ef96bd12ba1c7

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Studying nerve transfers: Searching for a consensus in nerve axons count

Francesco MoschellaRosario Emanuele PerrottaAlfio Luca CostaFranco BassettoMichele R. ColonnaPierluigi TosAndrea PorzionatoRiccardo E. GiuntaBruno BattistonJayme Augusto BertelliAlfonso Rodríguez BaezaFrancesca ToiaGuilia RonchiOscar AszmannNikolaos A. PapadopulosAdriana CordovaPaolo TitoloFrancisco SoldadoCesare TiengoChristine RadtkeKonstantinos NatsisStefano Geuna

subject

0301 basic medicineMicrosurgeryNerve injurymedicine.medical_specialtyConsensusFuture studiesResearch groupsStandardizationSettore MED/19 - Chirurgia PlasticaCell Count03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineAnimalsHumansMedicineAutograftsNerve TransferProtocol (science)Fiber countStaining and LabelingNerve transfersbusiness.industryHistological TechniquesExperimental Animal ModelsNerve injuryData scienceAxonsSurgeryEuropeLatin America030104 developmental biologyQuantitative analysis (finance)Fiber count; Microsurgery; Nerve injury; Nerve transfersNerve TransferSurgerymedicine.symptombusiness030217 neurology & neurosurgery

description

Axonal count is the base for efficient nerve transfer; despite its capital importance, few studies have been published on human material, most research approaches being performed on experimental animal models of nerve injury. Thus, standard analysis methods are still lacking. Quantitative data obtained have to be reproducible and comparable with published data by other research groups. To share results with the scientific community, the standardization of quantitative analysis is a fundamental step. For this purpose, the experiences of the Italian, Austrian, German, Greek, and Iberian-Latin American groups have been compared with each other and with the existing literature to reach a consensus in the fiber count and draw up a protocol that can make future studies from different centers comparable. The search for a standardization of the methodology was aimed to reduce all the factors that are associated with an increase in the variability of the results. All the preferential methods to be used have been suggested. On the other hand, alternative methods and different methods have been identified to achieve the same goal, which in our experience are completely comparable; therefore, they can be used indifferently by the different centers according to their experience and availability.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2021.03.064