Skip to main content
. 2021 Oct 20;6:66. doi: 10.1038/s41536-021-00176-6

Fig. 4. Electrophysiological and behavioral outcomes after re-transection of the scaffold compared to EES only.

Fig. 4

a Representative example of averaged spinal cord motor evoked potential (SCMEP) and supralesion evoked polysynaptic response (SEPR) (n = 8 responses) in rats implanted with hydrogel scaffold, and received EES-enabled motor training, collected at 2 and 6 weeks after spinal transection and after re-transection across the scaffold following 6 weeks of recovery. Motor evoked potentials were recorded from hind-limb muscle medial gastrocnemius (MG), while spinal cord was stimulated using epidural electrode placed at T8 segment (above the injury, SEPR) and at S1 segment (below the injury, SCMEP). Examples were collected from representative animal-1 and animal-2. Blue dotted line indicates the moment when EES pulse was applied. Middle and late responses (MR/LR) and SEPR are indicated with gray and blue rectangles. b Peak-to-peak amplitude of MR at week 6 and after re-transection. c Animals with scaffolds and EES (Combined therapy) recovered greater angular displacements of the knee, ankle, and MTP. After re-transection at week 6, improvement in motor function was still greater compared to transected animals without scaffold (EES only). The stance phase is represented by gray rectangle, drag by red, and swing by white. d Comparison of gait parameters, step length and maximum step height. e Angular displacements of hip, knee, ankle, and MTP. f BBB score assessed with EES OFF and ON before and after re-transection (n = 4). The same rats are tracked before and after re-transection using same types of dashed line. (Data are represented as mean +/− standard error. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001, one-way ANOVA and post-hoc analysis using Holm-Sidak method). Error bars: +/− standard error of the mean (SEM).