Intrinsic and therapeutic factors determining the recovery of motor function after peripheral nerve transection.

Insufficient recovery after peripheral nerve injury has been attributed to (i) poor pathfinding of regrowing axons, (ii) excessive collateral axonal branching at the lesion site and (iii) polyneuronal innervation of the neuromuscular junctions (NMJ). The facial nerve transection model has been used initially to measure restoration of function after varying therapies and to examine the mechanisms underlying their effects. Since it is very difficult to control the navigation of several thousand axons, efforts concentrated on collateral branching and NMJ-polyinnervation. Treatment with antibodies against trophic factors to combat branching improved the precision of reinnervation, but had no positive effects on functional recovery. This suggested that polyneuronal reinnervation – rather than collateral branching – may be the critical limiting factor. The former could be reduced by pharmacological agents known to perturb microtubule assembly and was followed by recovery of function. Because muscle polyinnervation is activity-dependent and can be manipulated, attempts to design a clinically feasible therapy were performed by electrical stimulation or by soft tissue massage. Electrical stimulation applied to the transected facial nerve or to paralysed facial muscles did not improve vibrissal motor performance and failed to diminish polyinnervation. In contrast, gentle stroking of the paralysed muscles (vibrissal, orbicularis oculi, tongue musculature) resulted in full recovery of function. This manual stimulation was also effective after hypoglossal–facial nerve suture and after interpositional nerve grafting, but not after surgical reconstruction of the median nerve. All these findings raise hopes that clinically feasible and effective therapies could be soon designed and tested.