Skip to main content
. 2021 Jan 25;16(9):1829–1835. doi: 10.4103/1673-5374.306095

Figure 2.

Figure 2

CS-GO scaffolds implantation and its effect on rat behavior and physiology.

(A) Establishment of the spinal cord transection model and implantation of the scaffold. White dashed squares from the left to the right indicate the sites of a normal spinal cord without injury, the transection site with injury, and the scaffold implantation in the injury site, respectively. (B) BBB scores over the 10 week follow-up (n = 6 for each group). (C) Representative images of SSEP 10 weeks post-surgery. (D) Latency and (E) intensity of SSEP (n = 4 for each group). (F) Representative spinal cord samples at 10 weeks post-implantation. Black and red arrows indicate the repair sites and cauda equina, respectively; the cauda equine of the Control is thinner than those of CS and CS-GO groups, and the repair site of CS-GO is thicker than those of the Control and CS groups. Scale bars: 5 mm in A, 10 mm in F. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. BBB: Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan; CS: chitosan; CS-GO: graphene oxide-composited chitosan; GO: graphene oxide; SSEP: somatosensory evoked potentials.