Elsevier

Biomaterials

Volume 27, Issue 19, July 2006, Pages 3515-3518
Biomaterials

Leading Opinion
Peripheral nerve regeneration: An opinion on channels, scaffolds and anisotropy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.02.030Get rights and content

Abstract

Peripheral nerve regeneration presents a significant clinical challenge and the current state of the art using autografts to repair long peripheral nerve gaps is unsatisfactory. In this manuscript, the analytical framework that determines the fate of grafts (autografts or biomaterial-based grafts) is discussed. Also outlined are parameters and variables that might be manipulated to enhance the efficacy of scaffolds designed for peripheral nerve regeneration. The importance of using appropriate animal models and outcome measures in evaluating biomaterials-based scaffolds or other engineered constructs suitability for bridging peripheral nerve gaps is highlighted.

Section snippets

The problem

Peripheral nerve regeneration is a serious clinical problem. In 1995, there were in excess of 50,000 peripheral nerve repair procedures performed in the United States [1]. The data, however, probably underestimates the number of nerve injuries, as not all surgical or traumatic lesions can be repaired. Coaptation of the two nerve ends is commonly used to repair short nerve defects. When larger nerve gaps exist (20 mm or longer in humans), the current clinical gold standard for repairing larger

Nerve guidance channels (NGCs)

To date, much of the research effort has focused on nerve guidance channels to enhance regeneration across nerve gaps. While they improve regeneration when compared to no intervention, guidance channels rarely approach or match the performance of autografts when the gaps are 10 mm or longer (in rats). This includes numerous studies with varying permeability of the guidance channels [4], [5], involving electrically active channels [6], [7], as well as degradable guidance channels [8], [9]. While

Nerve guidance channels may need to carry other scaffolds

The rationale for filling NGCs with ‘engineered’ constructs is the following. When nerve gaps are short and inherent regeneration is possible, a fibrin cable forms across the nerve gap [10], [11] allowing for Schwann cell infiltration and the formation of the Bands of Bungner, which are oriented columns of laminin-1 and aligned Schwann cells. Regenerating fibers then enter the gap and follow these Bands of Bungner, reach the distal end of the severed nerve, enter it and go on to re-innervate

Rational design of scaffolds for peripheral nerve repair

Pursuing this logic, several groups have implanted natural and synthetic biomaterials, cells, microfibers, nanofibers, chondroitinase ABC digested autografts, and Schwann cells seeded in Matrigel to enhance regeneration across peripheral nerve gaps. An analysis of these various approaches reveals that 4 essential components of grafts are typically manipulated to enhance regeneration across peripheral nerve gaps. These components are the growth permissive substrates (hydrogels or nano/micro

A case for anisotropy in scaffold design

Anisotropic distribution of the four components influencing peripheral nerve regeneration may enable faster or better regeneration, by exploiting the differential response of growth cones to changes in structural (oriented scaffolds vs. non-oriented scaffolds) or biochemical features (gradients of trophic or ECM proteins). Prof. Letourneu's pioneering work suggests that growth cone extension across gradients (even if it is down an LN-1 gradient) is superior to growth across uniformly

The third dimension: a closer look

Another important consideration in designing strategies for enhancing peripheral nerve regeneration are the kinds of approaches one takes to fill the NGCs with bioactive features (physical/structural as well as biochemical/biological). There has been a vigorous debate on the need for the development of 3D substrates/gels/scaffolds because they are more ‘biomimetic’. However, in general, neurite extension on 2D surfaces, including tissue culture plates, is better than when cells are embedded in

Animal models and evaluation of regeneration

Integral to designing and characterizing the ideal engineered constructs for peripheral nerve regeneration are the animal models used, the methods of analysis that determine success, and the criteria used to define success. In rat models, it is imperative that two factors be involved, a gap greater than 15 mm, and controls involving autografts. Secondly, should regeneration in such models be successful, it is important to test the engineered scaffolds in larger animals, with gaps greater than 40 

Conclusion

In conclusion, although a definitive engineered alternative to autografts has yet to be identified, several promising methods are approaching the performance of autografts. Engineered constructs whose design is inspired by an understanding of the distribution of structural, and biochemical features of autografts are more likely to succeed. Examples of such design include constructs that mimic autografts’ anisotropic physical features, including the oriented columns of Schwann cells and

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges several former and current post-docs, research engineers and graduate and undergraduate students, including Dr. Xiaojun Yu, Dr. Young-tae Kim, Mr. Michael Tanenbaum and Mr. Mahesh Dodla. Mr. Dodla is also acknowledged for the illustrations. Funding from NIH NS44409 and GTEC, an NSF funded Engineering Research Center at Georgia Institute of Technology/Emory University is acknowledged.

References (19)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

Editor's Note: Leading Opinions: This paper is one of a newly instituted series of scientific articles that provide evidence-based scientific opinions on topical and important issues in biomaterials science. They have some features of an invited editorial but are based on scientific facts, and some features of a review paper, without attempting to be comprehensive. These papers have been commissioned by the Editor-in-Chief and reviewed for factual, scientific content by referees.

View full text