A comparative assessment of lengthening followed by end-to-end repair and isograft repair of chronically injured peripheral nerves.

In order to repair chronic nerve injuries (injuries repaired after a long delay), the damaged nerve segments are resected and stumps are bridged by grafts. Autografts remain the gold-standard, but outcomes are typically poor, even after long periods of recovery. In a recent study, we described the use of a nerve lengthening device to gradually elongate the proximal stump of a transected nerve towards the distal stump, enabling a tension-free end-to-end repair. This approach showed significantly improved outcomes in comparison to autografts in repairing acutely injured nerves. In this study, we compared the use of nerve lengthening/end-to-end repair (LETER) to isograft repair of chronically transected nerves in a rat model. Structural and functional regenerative outcomes following LETER were comparable to isograft-based repair, with no significant differences found in outcomes involving functional recovery or axon growth. These data demonstrate the feasibility of nerve lengthening as a viable graft-free strategy for repairing chronically injured nerves. Not unexpectedly, outcomes for chronic nerve injuries were less favorable in both groups compared to repair of acutely injured nerves. Nonetheless, the findings provide insight into barriers to restoring function after chronic nerve injury through novel comprehensive characterization of a diverse set of neuromuscular outcomes. This analysis revealed key parameters predicting functional recovery.