南方医科大学学报

南方医科大学学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (1): 99-104.doi: 10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2023.01.13

• • 上一篇    下一篇

水缸评分法：可靠的大鼠脊髓损伤后运动功能评定方法

张 钰，洪淑娥，刘家明，刘志礼，肖世宁，颜金祥，周 扬   

  1. 南昌大学第一附属医院骨科，江西 南昌 330006；南昌大学脊柱脊髓研究所，江西 南昌 330006
  • 出版日期:2023-01-20 发布日期:2023-02-23

Water tank scale: a reliable method for assessing motor function after spinal cord injury in rats

ZHANG Yu, HONG Shu'e, LIU Jiaming, LIU Zhili, XIAO Shining, YAN Jinxiang, ZHOU Yang   

  1. Department of Orthopedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, China; Institute of Spine and Spinal Cord, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330006, China
  • Online:2023-01-20 Published:2023-02-23

RichHTML

13

PDF

193

摘要： 目的 分析水缸评分法评估大鼠脊髓损伤（SCI）后运动功能恢复的准确性。方法 选用成年雌性SD大鼠36只，采用数字表将大鼠随机分为脊髓损伤组和假手术组（n=18/组）。大鼠SCI后第1、3、5、7、14、21天分别采用水缸评分方法、BBB评分法和运动诱发电位（MEP）评估大鼠后肢功能恢复情况，并以运动诱发电位（MEP）作为金标准，分析比较两种评分方法的差异及验证水缸评分法的准确性。结果 与BBB评分方法相比，大鼠SCI后第3天，水缸评分法得分高于BBB评分法得分（0.22±0.43分vs0±0分，P<0.05），并在第5、7、14天的得分均高于BBB评分法得分(0.67±0.49分vs 0.11±0.32分，4.33±1.19分vs 2.83±1.04分，8.61±1.20分vs 7.06±1.0分，P<0.01）。术后第21天，水缸评分法（14.78±1.06分）与BBB评分法（14.50±1.47分）得分差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。神经电生理监测结果显示，水缸评分法得分与BBB评分法得分均与MEP 潜伏期呈显著相关，但水缸评分法与MEP 潜伏期的相关系数更高（r= -0.90，P<0.05）。结论 水缸评分法与BBB评分法相比，能够在大鼠SCI早期更客观、准确的反映脊髓损伤后的功能恢复过程，可作为大鼠急性脊髓损伤模型后肢功能恢复的一种可靠的评估方法。

关键词: 脊髓损伤；水缸评分方法；SD大鼠；运动诱发电位

Abstract: Objective To analyze the reliability of the Water Tank Scale for assessing recovery of motor function after spinal cord injury (SCI) in rats. Methods Thirty-six adult female SD rats were randomly divided into SCI and sham-operated groups (n=18). The recovery of the hind limb motor function was assessed using Water Tank scoring, BBB scoring, and motor-evoked potentials (MEP) at 1, 3, 5, 7, 14 and 21 days after SCI. MEP was used as the gold standard for analyzing and comparing differences between the two scoring methods. Results The Water Tank scores of the rats were significantly higher than the BBB scores on day 3 (0.22±0.43 vs 0, P<0.05) and also on days 5, 7 and 14 after SCI (0.67±0.49 vs 0.11±0.32, 4.33±1.19 vs 2.83±1.04, 8.61±1.20 vs 7.06±1.0, P<0.01). On day 21 after SCI, the scores of the Water Tank Scale of the rats did not significantly differ from the BBB scores (14.78±1.06 vs 14.50±1.47, P>0.05). Neurophysiological monitoring showed that both the Water Tank score and BBB score were significantly correlated with MEP latency, but the Water Tank score had a greater correlation coefficient with MEP latency (r=-0.90). Conclusion Compared with the BBB scale, Water Tank scoring allows more objective and accurate assessment of functional recovery of the spinal cord in early stages following SCI in rats, and can thus be used as a reliable method for assessing functional recovery of the hind limbs in rat models of acute SCI.

Key words: spinal cord injury; Water Tank scale; SD rats; motor-evoked potentials