Experimental Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury - Tissue-Protective Cytokines: Methods and Protocols - page 107

recently adapted the OSU impactor to accommodate the much
smaller body of the mouse, which will allow for the evaluation
of contusion injuries in transgenic animals. However, no supe-
riority of one over the other was determined.
7. Clip Compression : Apart from models using impactors, this
model simulates continuous cord compression secondary to
residual spinal column displacement ( 29 ). As in weight-drop
models, different severities of spinal cord injury can be created
by adjustment of the closing force of the clip, the duration of
compression, or both. With a greater closing force, fewer axons
are spared at the injury site, which in turn relates to a poorer
functional recovery after injury. In clip compression model rats
subjected to a 53 × g closing force for 1 min (considered a
“severe” injury) recovers to a BBB score of approximately 8.5
by 6 weeks after injury ( 7, 30 ). The clip compression model has
provided a very valuable setting in which study acute pathophys-
iology after cord injury ( 31, 32 ) the timing of decompression
( 33 ), and potential therapies such as electrical stimulation ( 34 )
and neuroprotective agents ( 35-37 ). However, the current
contusion and compression models inherently fail to simulate
the complex biomechanical stresses of distraction, compres-
sion, bending, and shear to which the human spinal cord is
subjected during trauma.

References

1. Fernandez E et al (1991) Experimental studies
on spinal cord injuries in the last fifteen years.
Neurol Res 13:138-159
2. Cheng H, Cao Y, Olson L (1996) Spinal cord
repair in adult paraplegic rats: partial restora-
tion of hind limb function. Science
273:510-513
3. Gruner JA (1992) A monitored contusion model
of spinal cord injury in the rat. J Neurotrauma
9:123-126
4. Stokes BT (1992) Experimental spinal cord
injury: a dynamic and verifiable injury device.
J Neurotrauma 9:129-131
5. Jakeman LB et al (2000) Traumatic spinal cord
injury produced by controlled contusion in
mouse. J Neurotrauma 17:299-319
6. Kobayashi NR et al (1997) BDNF and
NT-4/5 prevent atrophy of rat rubrospinal
neurons after cervical axotomy, stimulate
GAP-43 and Talpha1-tubulin mRNA expres-
sion, and promote axonal regeneration.
J Neurosci 17:9583-9595
7. Schwartz G, Fehlings MG (2001) Evaluation
of the neuroprotective effects of sodium chan-
nel blockers after spinal cord injury: improved
behavioral and neuroanatomical recovery with
riluzole. J Neurosurg 94:245-256

8. Blight AR (1992) Spinal cord injury models:
neurophysiology. J Neurotrauma 9:147-149
9. Holmes GM et al (1998) External anal sphinc-
ter hyperreflexia following spinal transection in
the rat. J Neurotrauma 15:451-457
10. Basso DM, Beattie MS, Bresnahan JC (1995) A
sensitive and reliable locomotor rating scale for
open field testing in rats. J Neurotrauma 12:1-21
11. Bresnahan JC et al (1987) A behavioral and ana-
tomical analysis of spinal cord injury produced by
a feedback-controlled impactiondevice. Exp
Neurol 95:548-570
12. Kunkel-Bagden E, Dai HN, Bregman BS
(1993) Methods to assess the development and
recovery of locomotor function after spinal
cord injury in rats. Exp Neurol 119:153-164
13. Soblosky JS et al (1997) Ladder beam and
camera video recording system for evaluating
forelimb and hindlimb deficits after sensorimo-
tor cortex injury in rats. J Neurosci Methods
78:75-83
14. Hicks SP, D'Amato CJ (1975) Motor-sensory
cortex-corticospinal system and developing
locomotion and placing in rats. Am J Anat
143:1-42
15. Rivlin AS, Tator CH (1977) Objective clinical
assessment of motor function after experimental