Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
EditorialEDITORIALS

New Model of Minimally Invasive Experimental Spinal Cord Injury

Eric D. Schwartz and B. Timothy Himes
American Journal of Neuroradiology February 2003, 24 (2) 166-168;
Eric D. Schwartz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. Timothy Himes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

In this issue of the AJNR, Dr. Purdy and colleagues present a new canine model of experimental spinal cord compression injury. They fluoroscopically manipulated a balloon catheter intrathecally from the lumbar region to the thoracic region and then inflated the balloon to create the injury. Animals underwent imaging with a 1.5-T magnet at the time of balloon inflation. This technique could have advantages over other widely used experimental spinal cord compression injury models, such as the weight-drop method, transection, and maintained compression.

The weight-drop method results in contusion injury. Laminectomy is performed over the spinal cord region of interest, and a known weight is dropped from a known height onto the exposed spinal cord. This method is widely used in the rat because of its morphologic, histologic, and functional similarities to human spinal cord injury (1). Additionally, modifications to this system have allowed precise measurements of biomechanical physical indices, such as spinal cord displacement and force curves.

Despite that only a small minority of injuries (such as knife wounds) result in a clean transection of spinal cord tissue, the use of a transection model is important in testing new treatment strategies designed to elicit axon regrowth and regeneration. The experimental advantage of this model is that axon regrowth and regeneration can be inferred with histologic axon tracing techniques showing axons extending beyond the transection site. In contusive models, initial axon transection may or may not have occurred.

Experimental spinal cord compression injury models of maintained compression of the spinal cord use weights placed on the spinal cord for variable lengths of time. These models also require laminectomy. A review by Anderson and Stokes (2) suggests that compression injury results in a block of local blood flow, causing disruption of axonal conduction and functional deficits. In addition to degree of compression, the speed or dynamics of compression are also important; the spinal cord may have no permanent deficits if slow compression is applied, whereas an equal but dynamic compression will result in permanent deficits and extensive histologic damage. This type of model allows one to dissociate the ischemic effects of spinal cord injury from the dynamic effects, thereby allowing for the evaluation of treatment regimens directed at the ischemic and reperfusion damage. The model presented by Purdy et al seems to fall more into the maintained compression category but with several added advantages.

The use and timing of a decompressive laminectomy in the setting of acute spinal cord injury is controversial, and in cases of chronic compressive myelopathy, decompressive laminectomy may be the treatment of choice. Experimental laminectomy, therefore, provides a confounding situation both when evaluating the effects of injury and treatment and when translating findings to the clinical arena. The effects of a decompressive laminectomy in the experimental setting have not been well studied; however, decompression of an injured spinal cord may ameliorate the ischemic changes of spinal cord compression injury by decreasing compressive forces on an edematous spinal cord. The CSF flow dynamics may also be altered by a laminectomy, and in the setting of chronic spinal cord compression injury, changes in CSF flow have been postulated to result in further damage to the spinal cord. The model presented by Purdy et al removes this problem by limiting surgical intervention to a lumbar puncture remote from the site of injury.

The use of MR imaging at the time of spinal cord compression injury may help in understanding the hemodynamics of this injury. The use of perfusion MR imaging techniques in the model presented by Purdy et al could help quantitate ischemic thresholds for spinal cord compression injury on the basis of compression. The effect of vascular permeability after compressive spinal cord compression injury has been studied and may be an important factor in secondary injury and in correlating with the extent of injury. A recent article by Bilgen et al (3) reported the use of in vivo dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging studies to evaluate the permeability of the blood-spinal cord barrier breakdown after contusive spinal cord compression injury to the rat. Bilgen et al noted a correlation between the restoration of the blood-spinal cord barrier and improvement in neurobehavioral scores.

Because ischemia is thought to be an important cause of myelopathy in association with chronic spinal cord compression, the use of diffusion MR imaging may be helpful in evaluating the acuteness and severity of spinal cord damage. If this model could be modified to emulate chronic spinal cord compression (perhaps with detachable balloons), the ischemic changes in compressive myelopathies due to spinal cord stenosis, as well as treatment effects (such as decompressive laminectomy), could also be evaluated.

As Purdy et al point out, the canine model may be easily translated to a clinical setting because it uses a standard 1.5-T magnet. The use of a standard imaging unit can be important in testing sequences in a controlled setting before applying them to humans. The “standard,” however, continues to change. Clinical 3-T magnets are now easily available and should provide improved resolution of the spinal cord. The use of small-bore, high-field-strength magnets continues to be necessary to test new sequences and hypotheses with high resolution in a controlled experimental setting. There is a large body of spinal cord compression injury basic science and behavioral research involving rodents and cats, thereby making it easier to evaluate and to compare new MR imaging techniques if these animals initially undergo imaging in a small-bore magnet. On a practical level, using large numbers of dogs to evaluate a new injury technique is difficult because of the expense and space required as compared with smaller animals. As the authors noted, their model could also be used in other animal models.

As Anderson and Stokes (2) point out, a single ideal experimental model of spinal cord compression injury is not possible because there is no stereotypical human spinal cord compression injury. This article provides a first look at a canine model of compressive spinal cord compression injury with possible advantages over other techniques, including lack of invasive surgical intervention and the ability to perform MR imaging at the time of injury. The model does still require validation with proof of reproducible histologic and behavioral findings. Its strengths, however, certainly warrant further investigation.

References

  1. ↵
    Metz GA, Curt A, van de Meent H, Klusman I, Schwab ME, Dietz V. Validation of the weight-drop contusion model in rats: a comparative study of human spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma 2000;17:1–17
    PubMed
  2. ↵
    Anderson TE, Stokes BT. Experimental models for spinal cord injury research: physical and physiologic considerations. J Neurotrauma 1992;9[suppl 1]:S135–S142
  3. ↵
    Bilgen M, Dogan B, Narayana P. In vivo assessment of blood-spinal cord barrier permeability: serial dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of spinal cord injury. Magn Reson Imaging 2002;20:337–341
    PubMed
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 24 (2)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 24, Issue 2
1 Feb 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
New Model of Minimally Invasive Experimental Spinal Cord Injury
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
New Model of Minimally Invasive Experimental Spinal Cord Injury
Eric D. Schwartz, B. Timothy Himes
American Journal of Neuroradiology Feb 2003, 24 (2) 166-168;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
New Model of Minimally Invasive Experimental Spinal Cord Injury
Eric D. Schwartz, B. Timothy Himes
American Journal of Neuroradiology Feb 2003, 24 (2) 166-168;
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Teaching Lessons by MR CLEAN
  • Coffee Houses and Reading Rooms
  • Comeback Victory
Show more EDITORIALS

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire