<< Back to the abstract archive
Crush Nerve Injury Model in the Rat Sciatic Nerve: Insights into Techniques, Variability, and Recovery Dynamics
Daiki Kitano, MD, PhD�; Dzana Katana, PhD�; Alexander R. Madanat�; Jade M. Smith�; Anna E. Bazell, BS�; Kacey G. Marra, PhD�,3
UPMC
2025-01-16
Presenter: Alexander Madanat
Affidavit:
I certify that the material proposed for presentation in this abstract has not been published in any scientific journal. However, I disclose that it is scheduled to be presented in March at the Robert H. Ivy Pennsylvania Plastic Surgery Society conference prior to the Ohio Valley Society of Plastic Surgery conference
Director Name: J Peter Rubin, MD
Author Category: Medical Student
Presentation Category: Basic Science Research
Abstract Category: General Reconstruction
Introduction: The rat sciatic nerve crush injury model is fundamental for studying peripheral nerve repair and recovery. This review systematically examines methodologies, reproducibility, and functional recovery trends, focusing on technique-specific variables affecting outcomes.
Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and SCOPUS (2010–2024) identified 48 studies, 21 of which met inclusion criteria. These studies employed controlled surgical crush injuries, with assessments of sensory and motor functions at various postoperative intervals. Key variables analyzed included instrument type, applied pressure, crush duration, and observation period. Recovery was evaluated through standardized functional tests, with emphasis on transient versus permanent impairments and inter-operator variability.
Results: Based on the analysis, four instrument categories were identified: clamps (11 studies), forceps (5), clips (4), and others (1). Clamps with tooth racks and spring clips ensured consistent pressure, while forceps without calibrated sensors introduced variability. Among 14 studies with extended observation periods (>28 days), 10 documented full recovery, consistent with findings indicative of transient axonotmesis. Shorter follow-up studies (<28 days) often failed to capture full recovery, highlighting the need for extended observation. Recovery typically peaks by postoperative day (POD) 21–28, plateauing by POD 56. These results emphasize the importance of standardized observation periods and calibrated instruments to enhance reproducibility. For experimental treatments, shorter timelines may suffice with robust methods.
Conclusion: The rat sciatic nerve crush model remains a reliable framework for nerve regeneration studies. By standardizing techniques and observation periods, this model can better support the development of clinical interventions for peripheral nerve injuries
