Dip Fernando, Aleman Rene, Socolovsky Mariano, Villalba Nerina, Falco Jorge, Menzo Emanuele Lo, White Kevin P, Rosenthal Raul J
Department of General Surgery & The Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland. Clinic Blvd, Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
Department of General Surgery, Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martín, University of Buenos Aires, Av. Córdoba 2351, C1121ABJ, CABA, Argentina.
Surg Endosc. 2021 Dec;35(12):7104-7111. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08227-7. Epub 2021 Mar 29.
Being able to accurately identify sensory and motor nerves is crucial during surgical procedures to prevent nerve injury. We aimed to (1) evaluate the feasibility of performing peripheral human nerve visualization utilizing nerves' own autofluorescence in an ex-vivo model; (2) compare the effect of three different nerve fiber fixation methods on the intensity of fluorescence, indicated as the intensity ratio; and (3) similarly compare three different excitation ranges.
Samples from various human peripheral nerves were selected postoperatively. Nerve fibers were divided into three groups: Group A nerve fibers were washed with a physiologic solution; Group B nerve fibers were fixated with formaldehyde for 6 h first, and then washed with a physiologic solution; Group C nerve fibers were fixated with formaldehyde for six hours, but not washed afterwards. An Olympus IX83 inverted microscope was used for close-up image evaluation. Nerve fibers were exposed to white-light wavelength spectrums for a specific time frame prior to visualization under three different filters-Filter 1-LF405-B-OMF Semrock; Filter 2-U-MGFP; Filter 3-U-MRFPHQ Olympus, with excitation ranges of 390-440, 460-480, and 535-555, respectively. The fluorescence intensity of all images was subsequently analyzed using Image-J Software, and results compared by analysis of variance (ANOVA).
The intensity ratios observed with Filter 1 failed to distinguish the different nerve fiber groups (p = 0.39). Conversely, the intensity ratios seen under Filters 2 and 3 varied significantly between the three nerve-fiber groups (p = 0.021, p = 0.030, respectively). The overall intensity of measurements was greater with Filter 1 than Filter 3 (p < 0.05); however, all nerves were well visualized by all filters.
The current results on ex vivo peripheral nerve fiber autofluorescence suggest that peripheral nerve fiber autofluorescence intensity does not greatly depend upon the excitation wavelength or fixation methods used in an ex vivo setting. Implications for future nerve-sparing surgery are discussed.
在外科手术过程中,能够准确识别感觉神经和运动神经对于预防神经损伤至关重要。我们旨在:(1)评估在体外模型中利用神经自身自发荧光进行周围人神经可视化的可行性;(2)比较三种不同神经纤维固定方法对荧光强度(以强度比表示)的影响;(3)同样比较三种不同的激发范围。
术后选取来自各种人周围神经的样本。神经纤维分为三组:A组神经纤维用生理溶液冲洗;B组神经纤维先用甲醛固定6小时,然后用生理溶液冲洗;C组神经纤维用甲醛固定6小时,但之后不冲洗。使用奥林巴斯IX83倒置显微镜进行特写图像评估。在三种不同滤光片下可视化之前,神经纤维在特定时间范围内暴露于白光波长光谱:滤光片1-LF405-B-OMF Semrock;滤光片2-U-MGFP;滤光片3-U-MRFPHQ奥林巴斯,激发范围分别为390 - 440、460 - 480和535 - 555。随后使用Image-J软件分析所有图像的荧光强度,并通过方差分析(ANOVA)比较结果。
用滤光片1观察到的强度比未能区分不同的神经纤维组(p = 0.39)。相反,在滤光片2和3下观察到的强度比在三个神经纤维组之间有显著差异(分别为p = 0.021,p = 0.030)。滤光片1的测量总体强度大于滤光片3(p < 0.05);然而,所有滤光片都能很好地观察到所有神经。
目前关于体外周围神经纤维自发荧光的结果表明,体外环境中周围神经纤维自发荧光强度在很大程度上不依赖于激发波长或固定方法。讨论了对未来保留神经手术的意义。