4.4 Article

Safety of intramedullary Schwann cell transplantation for postrehabilitation spinal cord injuries: 2-year follow-up of 33 cases

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 515-525

出版社

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/2011.6.SPINE10917

关键词

spinal cord injury; Schwann cell; transplantation; cell culture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Object. Many experimental studies on spinal cord injuries (SCIs) support behavioral improvement after Schwann cell treatment. This study was conducted to evaluate safety issues 2 years after intramedullary Schwann cell transplantation in 33 consecutively selected patients with SCI. Methods. Of 356 patients with SCIs who had completed at least 6 months of a conventional rehabilitation program and who were screened for the study criteria, 33 were enrolled. After giving their informed consent, they volunteered for participation. They underwent sural nerve harvesting and intramedullary injection of a processed Schwann cell solution. Outcome assessments included a general health questionnaire, neurological examination, and functional recordings in terms of American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) and Functional Independence Measure scoring, which were documented by independent observers. There were 24 patients with thoracic and 9 with cervical injuries. Sixteen patients were categorized in ASIA Grade A, and the 17 remaining participants had ASIA Grade B. Results. There were no cases of deep infection, and the follow-up MR imaging studies obtained at 2 years did not reveal any deformity related to the procedure. There was no case of permanent neurological worsening or any infectious or viral complications. No new increment in syrinx size or abnormal tissue and/or tumor formation were observed on contrast-enhanced MR imaging studies performed 2 years after the treatment. Conclusions. Preliminary results, especially in terms of safety, seem to be promising, paving the way for future cell therapy trials. (DOI: 10.3171/2011.6.SPINE10917)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据