Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Dec 6;17(12):e0278632. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278632

Acute postoperative pain and dorsal root ganglia transcriptomic signatures following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in rats: An experimental study

David E Komatsu 1,*, Sardar M Z Uddin 1, Chris Gordon 2, Martha P Kanjiya 2, Diane Bogdan 2, Justice Achonu 1, Adriana DiBua 2, Hira Iftikhar 2, Amanda Ackermann 2, Rohan J Shah 2, Jason Shieh 3, Agnieszka B Bialkowska 3, Martin Kaczocha 2,4,*
Editor: Antal Nógrádi5
PMCID: PMC9725137  PMID: 36473007

Abstract

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the final treatment option for patients with advanced knee osteoarthritis (OA). Unfortunately, TKA surgery is accompanied by acute postoperative pain that is more severe than arthroplasty performed in other joints. Elucidating the molecular mechanisms specific to post-TKA pain necessitates an animal model that replicates clinical TKA procedures, induces acute postoperative pain, and leads to complete functional recovery. Here, we present a new preclinical TKA model in rats and report on functional and behavioral outcomes indicative of pain, analgesic efficacy, serum cytokine levels, and dorsal root ganglia (DRG) transcriptomes during the acute postoperative period. Following TKA, rats exhibited marked deficits in weight bearing that persisted for 28 days. Home cage locomotion, rearing, and gait were similarly impacted and recovered by day 14. Cytokine levels were elevated on postoperative days one and/or two. Treatment with morphine, ketorolac, or their combination improved weight bearing while gabapentin lacked efficacy. When TKA was performed in rats with OA, similar functional deficits and comparable recovery time courses were observed. Analysis of DRG transcriptomes revealed upregulation of transcripts linked to multiple molecular pathways including inflammation, MAPK signaling, and cytokine signaling and production. In summary, we developed a clinically relevant rat TKA model characterized by resolution of pain and functional recovery within five weeks and with pain-associated behavioral deficits that are partially alleviated by clinically administered analgesics, mirroring the postoperative experience of TKA patients.

Introduction

Pain arising from osteoarthritis of the knee is highly prevalent in the population and adversely affects both quality of life and worker productivity, costing the US economy over $150 billion annually [13]. Osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive disease characterized by degradation of articular cartilage, subchondral bone damage, and inflammation of synovial tissues mediated by immune cell infiltration of joint tissues, extracellular matrix proteases, and pro-inflammatory cytokines [4]. OA is accompanied by significant pain that is commonly managed using topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), in preference to oral NSAIDs, whose long-term utilization can result in adverse effects in multiple organs [5]. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the current gold-standard intervention to alleviate pain and improve mobility in end-stage OA. TKA involves surgically replacing the articulating joint surfaces with prostheses. Approximately 700,000 TKAs are performed annually in the United States alone and this is projected to reach 1–2 million cases per year by 2030 [6].

TKA induces significant acute postoperative pain despite the use of multimodal analgesia [711]. Postoperative pain subsequent to surgical incision is functionally linked to increased sensitization and output of nociceptors, primary afferent neurons that transmit noxious stimuli from the site of injury to the spinal cord [12,13]. The development of new analgesics is hampered by our incomplete understanding of the molecular determinants of post-TKA pain, notably in dorsal root ganglia (DRG) that house the cell bodies of primary afferent neurons.

Elucidation of such pathways necessitates a preclinical TKA model that closely mimics the clinical procedure as well as outcomes including acute postoperative pain and recovery of function. While several TKA models have been reported in rats [1417], none of these have demonstrated responsiveness to analgesia and complete restoration of knee function as reported in clinical studies. Herein, we describe a new preclinical model of TKA in rats that is accompanied by behaviors indicative of acute postoperative pain responsive to clinically employed analgesics, and exhibits functional recovery and pain resolution as observed in TKA patients. Demonstrating the utility of this model, mRNA sequencing (RNA-seq) of DRGs identified multiple transcripts and molecular pathways that are upregulated during the acute postoperative period, thus expanding our understanding of acute postsurgical pain.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

All animal procedures were approved by the Stony Brook University Animal Care and Use Committee (#564663) prior to study initiation and met or exceeded United States Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Data reporting in the manuscript follows the recommendations in the ARRIVE guidelines.

Prosthesis fabrication

To design the rat knee prosthesis, the tibial and femoral condyles of skeletally mature, 300 g Sprague Dawley rats were measured using digital calipers (Cen-tech) (Fig 1A and 1B). A tool and die corresponding to the curvature of the femoral and tibial implants were machined out of steel and heat-hardened. Implant outlines were then cut from flat, 1.5 mm thick 316 stainless steel. These pieces were positioned between the tool and die, loaded in a hydraulic press, and compressed to generate the prothesis curvature. A 1.5 mm diameter stainless steel stem was then spot welded to the bottom of each implant, and they were polished and autoclaved prior to implantation (Fig 1C). Each pair of implants weighed ~350 mg.

Fig 1. TKA prostheses design.

Fig 1

Femoral and tibial prostheses were designed based on the dimensions of skeletally mature Sprague Dawley rats. (A) Measurements (mm) and schematic representation of the tibial and femoral prostheses. (B) Surface rendered model of femoral and tibial prostheses. (C) Photograph of the manufactured prostheses.

Surgical procedures

Three-hundred-gram male and female Sprague Dawley rats (Envigo) were obtained and individually housed with ad libitum access to food and water. Lighting was maintained on a 12-hour light/dark cycle, temperature was kept at 22 ± 2°C, and humidity was constant at 50 ± 10% relative humidity. The animal cages were kept in the same location for the duration of each study. Rats were randomized to surgical groups by body weight and sex, and the behavioral outcome measures were performed in a random order each day by researchers who were blinded to the experimental conditions. All animals were monitored daily for one week after surgery and weekly thereafter for signs of distress and surgical site healing. At the end of the experiment, the animals were euthanized by CO2 inhalation followed by decapitation.

TKA surgery

For the TKA surgery, the rats were anesthetized with isoflurane and their left knees were sterilely prepped. An anterior midline incision (~20 mm) was made through the skin and fascia over the patella. A medial parapatellar incision was then made from the distal quadriceps to the tibial plateau and the patella was dislocated laterally to expose the knee (Fig 2A). The medial and lateral menisci were removed and the distal femur and proximal tibia were then reamed with a 1.3 mm k-wire (Zimmer) using a rotary cutting tool (Dremel, Robert Bosch Tool Corp) (Fig 2B and 2C). Next, the femoral and tibial condyles were trimmed using a diamond wafer blade attached to the rotary cutting tool (Fig 2D and 2E). Reaming and trimming were performed at slow rotation speeds under continuous sterile saline irrigation to remove debris and prevent thermal necrosis. The custom designed stainless steel femoral and tibial prostheses were press-fitted into the femur and tibia (Fig 2F). The patella was then reduced and the joint was closed using 4–0 resorbable sutures (Vicryl, Johnson and Johnson) (Fig 2G). The skin was then closed with 5–0 non-resorbable sutures (Prolene, Johnson and Johnson) (Fig 2H). Implant positioning was verified fluoroscopically (C-arm, Xi Tec) (Fig 2I and 2J).

Fig 2. Surgical procedure and implant positioning.

Fig 2

(A) Exposure of knee after anterior midline and medial parapatellar incisions. (B) Reaming of the femur. (C) Reaming of the tibia. (D) Trimming of the femoral condyle. (E) Trimming of the tibial condyle. (F) Knee after implantation of femoral and tibial prostheses. (G) Knee after patellar reduction and joint closure. (H) Knee after skin closure. (I) Fluoroscopic image of the knee in flexion immediately post-TKA. (J) Fluoroscopic image of the knee in extension immediately post-TKA. (K) Fluoroscopic image of the knee in flexion 5 weeks post-TKA. (L) Fluoroscopic image of the knee in extension 5 weeks post-TKA.

Sham surgery

For Sham surgery, the rats were anesthetized with isoflurane and their left knees were sterilely prepped. An anterior midline incision (~20 mm) was made through the skin and fascia over the patella. The skin was then closed with 5–0 non-resorbable sutures. This procedure served as a control for both the TKA and DMM surgeries.

DMM surgery

The destabilized medial meniscus model (DMM) [18,19] was used to induce OA. This is a surgical model of post-traumatic OA that replicates the clinical etiology of secondary OA and is not associated with the strong inflammatory response seen in chemically-induced OA models [20]. The rats were anesthetized with isoflurane and their left knees were sterilely prepped. An anterior midline incision (~20 mm) was made through the skin and fascia over the patella. A medial parapatellar incision was then made from the distal quadriceps to the tibial plateau and the patella was dislocated laterally to expose the knee. The medial meniscus was destabilized by transecting the anterior horn with a scalpel. The patella was then reduced and the joint was closed using 4–0 resorbable sutures. The skin was closed with 5–0 non-resorbable sutures and the animals received buprenorphine for postoperative analgesia. The rats underwent TKA surgery four weeks after the DMM or sham procedure as described above.

Incapacitance

Rats were placed in a small animal incapacitance meter (IITC Life Sciences, US) and six discrete 15-sec recordings were collected on the indicated days as we previously reported [21]. The ratio of the weight placed on the left to the right hind limb is reported. The rats were acclimated to the apparatus for one week prior to TKA surgery and incapacitance was recorded at baseline and at the indicated time points.

Home cage–locomotion and rearing

Locomotion and rearing activity during the 12-hour dark phase was quantified on the indicated days using the PAS Home Cage system (San Diego Instruments, US) as we previously described [21]. Rats were singly housed, and baseline, as well as post-TKA locomotion and rearing, were recorded for each animal. Normalized activity profiles (post-TKA/baseline) are presented for each group.

Gait analyses

Gait analyses were conducted to assess the restoration of normal gait. An acrylic runway (120 cm long, 9 cm wide, and 30 cm high) was constructed to assess gait. A strip of white paper was cut to the length of the runway and placed at the bottom of the runway for each assessment. The hind paws of the rats were then dipped in nontoxic carbon ink (Platinum, Japan) and they were placed at the open end of the runway and allowed to walk to the darkened reward box on the other side. The paper strips were collected for calculation of SFI [22] and Stride Length.

Sciatic Functional Index (SFI)

SFI was originally developed as a measure of sciatic nerve function and is based on measurements of toe spread and pawprint length [22]. We noted that rats limped following TKA surgery and this was reflected in pawprints that demonstrated reduced toe spread and shortened pawprint length. As such we used SFI as an index of gait recovery following surgery. To do so, the normal and experimental print length (NPL & EPL), toe spread (NTS & ETS), and intermediate toe spread (NITS & EITS) were measured. The right leg served as the control and the left as the experimental. Measurements were taken from three consecutive steps with a continuous gait. The mean of the three measurements for each parameter was then used to calculate SFI via the following equation [22]: SFI = -38.3 (EPL–NPL)/NPL + 109.5(ETS-NTS)/NTS + 13.3(EITS-NITS)/NITS– 8.8.

The rats were acclimated to this procedure for one week prior to surgery and SFI was calculated at baseline and at the indicated time points.

Stride length

In addition to reduced toe spread and shortened pawprint length, we also observed that limping in rats was characterized by a reduced distance between steps. Therefore, we used stride length as an additional measure of gait recovery following surgery. Using the same strips, the distance between the front edge of the central paw pad was measured. The measurements were taken for the left and right paws from the same three consecutive steps used for SFI calculations. The mean stride length of the left paw was divided by the mean stride length of the right paw stride and the results reported as normalized stride length.

ELISA

Whole blood samples were collected from the tail vein on the indicated days into BD Microtainer Tubes (SST Clear/Amber 365967) and serum separation was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Serum levels of TNFα (R&D Systems #RTA00) and IL-6 (R&D Systems #R6000B) were determined by ELISA. The plates were read on a microplate reader (SpectraMax i3X, Molecular Devices) and absorbance was read at 450 nm with wavelength correction set at 540 nm (SoftMax Pro 6.5, Molecular Devices).

Drug administration

Morphine (Hikma), ketorolac (Cayman Chemical), and gabapentin (Acros Organics) were administered in a volume of 1 μl/g body weight. Morphine (1 mg/kg, dissolved in sterile saline) was given as a subcutaneous injection while ketorolac (10 mg/kg, dissolved in sterile saline) and gabapentin (100 mg/kg, dissolved in sterile saline) were given as intraperitoneal injections. Outcomes were measured prior to drug administration and one hour after administration.

RNA sequencing

mRNA sequencing (RNA-seq) was used to explore gene expression profiles of L3-L4 DRGs collected from three male and female naive, sham, and TKA rats. Rats were euthanized by exsanguination after deep isoflurane anesthesia. Laminectomy was performed to allow direct access to the ipsilateral L3-4 DRGs. The DRGs were immediately preserved and stabilized in RNAlater (#R0901, Sigma). Total RNA was extracted using the PureLink RNA Mini Kit (#12183018A, Invitrogen/Thermo Fisher Scientific) following the manufacturer’s instructions, and treated on column to degrade contaminating DNA with PureLink DNase (#12185–010, Invitrogen/Thermo Fisher Scientific). Purified total RNA was eluted from the column with RNase-free water. RNA integrity number (RIN) was measured using a BioAnalyzer (Agilent 2100) and all samples delivered a RIN value > 6.8. cDNA library construction and paired-end 150 bp sequencing were performed on Illumina NovaSeq platforms by Novogene (Davis Lab, Sacramento, CA) and subsequently tested for quality (Library QC) with Qubit, real-time PCR for quantification, and BioAnalyzer for size distribution detection. Pair-end reads were aligned to the rat genome (RGSC 6.0/rn6) using HISAT2, transcript counts were quantified with FeatureCounts, and differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified with DESeq2 package (Usegalaxy.org) [23]. Gene expression fold-change ≥ 1.5 and false discovery rate (FDR) < 0.05 were set as the threshold values for subsequent analysis. Gene set enrichment analysis with ClusterProfiler was performed in R (https://learn.gencore.bio.nyu.edu). Heatmaps were generated using Seqmonk (https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/seqmonk). The GEO accession number for these RNA-seq data is: GSE195833

Statistical analysis

A power calculation based on preliminary incapacitance data was conducted to determine the appropriate sample size. It was assumed that the resulting data would be normally distributed and One-way ANOVA would be used to assess differences of >10% between time points at alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.80. The power analysis was performed using an automated calculator [24] and revealed that a sample size of 8 would be required. Results are reported as group mean +/- standard error of the mean. Analgesic data were also transformed to % Reversal = (100*[After-Before]/[1-Before]) and reported as dot plots showing individual data points and group means (bars). Normality was first assessed using Shapiro-Wilk tests. Subsequently, comparisons between groups for longitudinal outcomes were made using One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparisons with the baseline data as the control group. Before and after comparisons for the analgesic responses were made using paired t-tests. All analyses were conducted on non-normalized data using Prism (Ver. 9, GraphPad) with significance set at p < 0.05.

Results

Prosthesis design and TKA surgery

The prostheses were designed based on the tibial and femoral condyles of skeletally mature Sprague Dawley rats and machined from stainless steel (Fig 1). TKA surgeries were successfully conducted as evidenced by full passive range of motion that was achieved postoperatively (Fig 2 and S1 Video). Moreover, the implants retained their position for the duration of the study (Fig 2K and 2L). Compared to baseline, the rats showed pronounced limping after TKA surgery (S2 and S3 Videos), which fully recovered by day 35 (S4 Video).

Pain and functional recovery after TKA

We employed multiple approaches to assess postoperative behaviors indicative of pain and functional recovery including incapacitance, home cage locomotion and rearing, sciatic functional index (SFI), and stride length. In addition, we assessed systemic inflammation by quantifying serum levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), which are known to be elevated after TKA surgery in humans [2528].

As expected, TKA induced pronounced incapacitance in the surgical limb, which did not recover to baseline levels until postoperative day 35 (Fig 3A). In comparison, sham surgery did not affect incapacitance (Fig 3A). In addition to weight-bearing deficits, animals experiencing postoperative pain exhibit reduced ambulation and rearing [21,2932]. Consistent with these observations, home cage locomotion and rearing were diminished after TKA, with significant reductions in both of these outcomes for the first 7 days following surgery (Fig 3B and 3C). Again, no changes in either outcome were observed in the sham controls. Due to the pronounced limping seen in the first postoperative week (S3 Video), gait assessments began on day 7. Consistent with the home cage data, TKA rats exhibited significant reductions in SFI and stride length on day 7 that returned to baseline by day 14 (Fig 3D and 3E). No gait changes were observed in the sham group (Fig 3D and 3E).

Fig 3. Functional recovery after TKA surgery.

Fig 3

Recovery from surgery was evaluated over 35 days using a range of behavioral outcomes to compare rats subjected to TKA and sham surgery. (A) Incapacitance, (B) home cage locomotion, (C) rearing, (D) SFI, and (E) stride length. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001 vs baseline, as determined by One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post-hoc test (n = 8).

TKA induces an acute inflammatory response as evidenced by elevated serum pro-inflammatory cytokines after surgery [2528,33]. In agreement with the clinical data, serum cytokine analysis revealed elevated levels of IL-6 and TNFα after TKA surgery (Fig 4). IL-6 levels were significantly elevated on day 1 and then gradually returned to baseline (Fig 4). TNFα peaked on day 2 and subsequently returned to baseline.

Fig 4. Serum IL-6 and TNFα levels after TKA.

Fig 4

Levels of (A) IL-6 and (B) TNFα at baseline (day 0) and up to 14 days after TKA. *, p < 0.05 vs baseline as determined by One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post-hoc test (n = 6).

Acute postoperative pain and analgesic efficacy

As our TKA model induces functional deficits, we sought to determine if these deficits reflect postoperative pain. To test this, we administered morphine and ketorolac, two analgesics commonly used to manage acute postoperative pain. Incapacitance was assessed before and after drug administration on day 1, to reflect the immediate postoperative period characterized by elevated cytokine levels and on day 7, a time point at which inflammatory cytokine levels were no longer different from presurgical baselines (Fig 4). Administration of morphine or ketorolac individually partially restored weight bearing on day 1 with the combined administration of both analgesics showing increased efficacy (Fig 5A and 5B), consistent with clinical utilization of multimodal analgesia post-TKA. On day 7, morphine continued to exhibit efficacy in improving incapacitance while ketorolac did not, presumably reflecting reduced inflammation at this time point (Fig 5C and 5D). Given the lack of efficacy for ketorolac on day 7, the combination of morphine and ketorolac was not tested. Administration of vehicle had no effect on incapacitance.

Fig 5. Analgesic efficacy after TKA surgery.

Fig 5

(A) Incapacitance on day 1 before and after vehicle (saline), morphine (1 mg/kg), ketorolac (10 mg/kg), combined ketorolac and morphine, or gabapentin (100 mg/kg). Dashed line indicates the mean incapacitance value of the Sham group. (B) Percent reversal of incapacitance for each rat in A. (C) Incapacitance on day 7 before and after vehicle, morphine, or ketorolac. Dashed line indicates the mean incapacitance value of the Sham group. (D) Percent reversal of incapacitance for each rat in C. (E) SFI on day 7 before and after morphine, ketorolac, or gabapentin. Dashed line indicates the mean SFI value of the Sham group. (F) Percent reversal of SFI for each rat in E. (G) Stride length on day 7 before and after morphine, ketorolac, or gabapentin. Dashed line indicates the mean stride length value of the Sham group. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001, as determined by paired t-tests (n = 8).

The effects of morphine and ketorolac on gait were evaluated on day 7 due to the profound limping observed during the first week after surgery (S3 Video). Consistent with the incapacitance results, morphine improved SFI (Fig 5E and 5F), indicating that the deficits in SFI reflect postoperative pain. Similar to incapacitance, ketorolac was also unable to rescue SFI on day 7. Stride length was unaffected by morphine or ketorolac (Fig 5G), indicating that this outcome measure has poorer sensitivity than incapacitance or SFI in measuring pain.

Next, we determined whether our model can discriminate between clinically effective and ineffective analgesics. Gabapentin is an anticonvulsant that is routinely added to multimodal analgesia protocols to manage acute postoperative pain after TKA, although recent meta-analyses indicate a lack of efficacy [34,35]. Consistent with these clinical observations, gabapentin failed to alter incapacitance (Fig 5A and 5B). Interestingly, gabapentin improved SFI, suggesting that there may be a neuropathic component to post-TKA pain in our model (Fig 5E and 5F). Collectively, these results demonstrate that our rat TKA model induces pain that can be partially alleviated by clinically efficacious analgesics.

Influence of OA on pain and functional recovery after TKA

As OA is the major indication for TKA surgery, we assessed whether pre-existing OA influences recovery in our TKA model. OA was induced using the destabilized medial meniscus model (DMM) [18,19]. Four weeks later, the establishment of OA was confirmed by radiographic evidence of joint narrowing, histological evidence of cartilage degradation, and weight bearing deficits (Fig 6A–6C). Consequently, this time point was selected as the starting point for TKA surgery. Similar to TKAs performed in healthy rats, marked reductions in post-TKA incapacitance were observed in OA rats that persisted until day 21, with full recovery at day 35 (Fig 6D). Home cage locomotion and rearing were reduced at day 7 and recovered by day 14 (Fig 6E and 6F). Gait also demonstrated comparable recovery kinetics to healthy rats, with SFI significantly impaired on day 7 and stride length significantly impaired on days 7 and 14 (Fig 6G and 6H). None of these parameters were altered in the sham group. Collectively, our data suggest similar recovery patterns in rats with established OA compared to healthy rats.

Fig 6. Functional recovery after TKA surgery in rats with OA.

Fig 6

(A) Lateral knee radiograph (left), H&E (middle), and Sirius red (right) staining of the proximal tibia from a healthy rat. (B) Lateral knee radiograph (left), H&E (middle), and Sirius red (right) staining of the proximal tibia from an OA rat 4 weeks post-DMM surgery. (C) Incapacitance at 4 weeks after DMM or Sham surgery. *, p < 0.05, as determined by unpaired t-test (n = 8). For D-H, rats underwent TKA or Sham surgery 4 weeks after OA induction via DMM (OA + TKA) or Sham (Sham + Sham) procedures, respectively. (D) Incapacitance, (E) home cage locomotion, (F) rearing, (G) SFI, and (H) stride length. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001 vs baseline, as determined by One-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post-hoc test (n = 8).

DRG transcriptomic signatures after TKA

To identify transcriptomic changes accompanying acute postoperative pain, we performed RNA-seq on DRGs obtained from naïve, sham, and TKA rats 24h after surgery. Hierarchically clustered heat map analysis revealed differences in the global transcriptomic landscape between the TKA and sham groups (Fig 7A). To identify differentially regulated transcripts, we filtered the data by focusing on genes exhibiting ≥1.5 fold-change, resulting in 56 transcripts (Fig 7B and Table 1). Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) and pathway analyses for these transcripts identified highly ranked pathways associated with inflammatory response (Il1r1, Apod, Zfp36, Per1, Tnfaip6, Socs3, Serpine1), cytokine production (Il1r1, Apod, Per1, Agpat2), MAPK (Zfp36, Dusp6, Map3k6, Ackr3, P2ry6, Per1, Myc), transcription factor binding (Zfp36, Egr2, Per1, Dcn, Myc, Socs3), cytokine-mediated signaling (Ifitm3, Ackr3), and transmembrane receptor protein tyrosine kinase signaling (Apod, Per1, Myc, Socs3) (Fig 7C). Next, we queried a DRG single cell transcriptomic database to identify the potential cellular origin of these transcripts and found that the majority mapped to macrophages (Zfp36, Maff, Egr2, Fosl2, P2ry6, Socs3, Serpine1) and/or Schwann cells (Cebpd, Cldn1, Steap4, Apod, Egr2, Ackr3, Tnfaip6, Socs3) [36]. We also compared sham to the naïve group and identified Ccl2 as the sole upregulated transcript (S1 Table).

Fig 7. DRG transcriptome evaluation 24h after TKA surgery.

Fig 7

(A) Hierarchically clustered heat map comparing DRG transcriptomes between individual Sham and TKA rats (n = 6). (B) Volcano plot showing relative expression of DRG transcriptomes from TKA rats compared to Sham. The x-axis shows the log2 fold change and the y-axis shows the -log10 adjusted p values. Thresholds for significant changes in expression were set at ≥1.5 fold-change and adjusted p values <0.05. Downregulated and upregulated genes are shown in blue and red, respectively. Several upregulated genes of interest are labeled. (C) Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) plots for upregulated pathways in DRGs from TKA rats compared to Sham.

Table 1. Differentially expressed transcripts in DRGs 24h after surgery (TKA/sham).

Ensembl ID Gene name log2FC Adjusted p value Name
ENSRNOT00000090129 Zfp36 1.142 3.92E-05 ZFP35 ring finger protein
ENSRNOT00000017181 Maff 0.829 3.92E-05 V-maf avian musculoaponeurotic fibrosarcoma oncogene homolog F
ENSRNOT00000024483 Dhrs2 -1.742 3.92E-05 Dehydrogenase/reductase (SDR family) member 2
ENSRNOT00000020265 Ifitm3 0.863 0.000143 Interferon induced transmembrane protein 3
ENSRNOT00000074586 Cebpd 0.896 0.000150 CCAAT/enhancer binding protein (C/EBP), delta
ENSRNOT00000002640 Cldn1 1.101 0.000404 Claudin 1
ENSRNOT00000061041 Rpl26-ps2 0.708 0.000788 Ribosomal protein L26
ENSRNOT00000010289 Apold1 1.198 0.000888 Apolipoprotein L domain containing 1
ENSRNOT00000011432 Steap4 1.285 0.002094 STEAP family member 4
ENSRNOT00000052002 Zmiz2 -1.343 0.002094 Zinc finger, MIZ-type containing 2
ENSRNOT00000022144 Enc1 0.732 0.002105 Ectodermal-neural cortex 1 (with BTB domain)
ENSRNOT00000007320 Best1 0.979 0.002238 Bestrophin 1
ENSRNOT00000037844 Dusp6 0.790 0.004010 Dual specificity phosphatase 6
ENSRNOT00000083188 Clec2g 0.710 0.004118 C-type lectin domain family 2, member g
ENSRNOT00000047635 Elf2 1.020 0.004179 E74-like factor 2 (ets domain transcription factor)
ENSRNOT00000009894 Nfkbia 0.934 0.004237 Nuclear factor of kappa light polypeptide gene enhancer in B-cells inhibitor, alpha
ENSRNOT00000024947 Tubb6 0.757 0.004794 Tubulin, beta 6 class V
ENSRNOT00000073330 Apod 1.097 0.005026 Apolipoprotein D
ENSRNOT00000082146 Il1r1 0.878 0.006134 Interleukin 1 receptor, type I
ENSRNOT00000071060 Pak2 -1.317 0.006965 P21 protein (Cdc42/Rac)-activated kinase 2
ENSRNOT00000056414 Col6a6 0.922 0.008089 Collagen, type VI, alpha 6
ENSRNOT00000000792 Egr2 1.181 0.008351 Early growth response 2
ENSRNOT00000024011 Klf15 0.938 0.008817 Kruppel-like factor 15
ENSRNOT00000026186 Sult1a1 0.879 0.009924 Sulfotransferase family, cytosolic, 1A, phenol-preferring, member 1
ENSRNOT00000077894 Fosl2 0.954 0.009924 FOS-like antigen 2
ENSRNOT00000021403 Nabp1 0.925 0.009924 Nucleic acid binding protein 1
ENSRNOT00000024283 Cryba2 -1.268 0.009924 Crystallin, beta A2
ENSRNOT00000005797 Dlx3 -1.265 0.010100 Distal-less homeobox 3
ENSRNOT00000012463 Map3k6 0.828 0.015538 Mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase kinase 6
ENSRNOT00000025856 Ch25h 1.042 0.017358 Cholesterol 25-hydroxylase
ENSRNOT00000074993 Lrg1 1.094 0.019213 Leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein 1
ENSRNOT00000063831 Zswim8 1.056 0.019213 Zinc finger, SWIM-type containing 8
ENSRNOT00000035123 Tmem252 1.196 0.020854 Transmembrane protein 252
ENSRNOT00000000628 Cdkn1a 1.030 0.020854 Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1A
ENSRNOT00000077727 Pla1a 1.058 0.021155 Phospholipase A1 member A
ENSRNOT00000010084 Mafa -0.642 0.021502 MAF bZIP transcription factor A
ENSRNOT00000026558 Ackr3 0.678 0.022403 Atypical chemokine receptor 3
ENSRNOT00000050227 P2ry6 1.176 0.024179 Pyrimidinergic receptor P2Y6
ENSRNOT00000023488 Gja5 1.156 0.024179 Gap junction protein, alpha 5
ENSRNOT00000057136 Per1 0.714 0.024179 Period circadian regulator 1
ENSRNOT00000070792 Tnfaip6 1.146 0.028773 TNF alpha induced protein 6
ENSRNOT00000006070 Dcn 0.857 0.028773 Decorin
ENSRNOT00000031701 Rnf122 0.842 0.028773 Ring finger protein 122
ENSRNOT00000021353 Lrp4 0.729 0.035766 LDL receptor related protein 4
ENSRNOT00000014388 Col8a2 0.663 0.035766 Collagen type VIII alpha 2 chain
ENSRNOT00000006188 Myc 0.932 0.035766 MYC proto-oncogene, bHLH transcription factor
ENSRNOT00000015705 Lrfn2 -0.823 0.035906 Leucine rich repeat and fibronectin type III domain containing 2
ENSRNOT00000003940 Socs3 1.025 0.035906 Suppressor of cytokine signaling 3
ENSRNOT00000001916 Serpine1 1.086 0.035906 Serpin family E member 1
ENSRNOT00000086350 Inhbb -0.698 0.035906 Inhibin subunit beta B
ENSRNOT00000013284 Piwil2 -0.735 0.035906 Piwi-like RNA-mediated gene silencing 2
ENSRNOT00000067391 Mt2A 1.084 0.036556 Metallothionein 2A
ENSRNOT00000073595 LOC688459 1.078 0.041160 Hypothetical protein LOC688459
ENSRNOT00000017065 C1qc 0.928 0.042207 Complement C1q C chain
ENSRNOT00000026408 Agpat2 0.735 0.042458 1-acylglycerol-3-phosphate O-acyltransferase 2
ENSRNOT00000029431 Cep76 0.786 0.047454 Centrosomal protein 76

Discussion

TKA is the final option to decrease pain and improve mobility for patients with end-stage OA. However, TKA surgery induces acute postoperative pain that is higher than for other joints such at the hip [37]. The development of new pain management strategies for TKA patients necessitates an understanding of the mechanisms underlying acute post-TKA pain. Toward this end, we developed a rat TKA model that displays acute postoperative pain and assessed the corresponding DRG transcriptomic signatures.

TKA is an invasive procedure that requires removal of femoral and tibial condyles (cartilage and significant portions of the subchondral bone), intramedullary reaming, and implantation of metallic prosthesis (press-fit or cemented), as well as tensioning and reconstruction of the joint capsule. While several rat models of knee arthroplasty have been reported [1416], as well as a few less invasive models of knee surgery [29,31], none of these models have been shown to replicate the acute postoperative pain and restoration of function as observed clinically [3840]. Our TKA model mimics the clinical procedure: trimming of the tibial and femoral condyles, intramedullary drilling and reaming, implantation of tibial and femoral prostheses, as well as reconstruction of the knee joint. Radiographic imaging confirmed proper positioning of tibial and formal prostheses in full extension and flexion and restoration of normal range of motion within 35 days (Fig 2I and 2J, S4 Video).

The postoperative period in TKA patients is characterized by an acute inflammatory phase and acute pain at rest and upon ambulation that gradually recovers. Our model reflects these clinical observations as TKA was accompanied by elevated IL-6 and TNFα levels and functional deficits consistent with acute postoperative pain. Morris et al. reported a similar pattern of elevated IL-6, though not to a significant degree, following knee surgery in rats [17]. The animals were observed initially limping and then gradually recovered normal gait, confirming that rats subjected to TKA regained normal knee loading and function. We employed multiple behavioral outcomes to assess postoperative pain and function, with each exhibiting distinct recovery kinetics. The rate of functional recovery for this TKA model is slower compared to less severe models of knee surgery [29,31], which typically exhibit functional recoveries within a week. However, complete functional recovery is demonstrated within five weeks, in contrast to a recent model that exhibited continued functional deficits at 3 months [14]. We developed our model in healthy rats and subsequently ascertained any potential postoperative differences in rats with preexisting OA. This comparison revealed that the magnitude and recovery kinetics were largely similar between the two groups, with the sole exceptions of a greater loss of SFI in the OA group at day 7 and prolonged deficits in stride length until day 14.

Following TKA surgery, the rats responded to clinically utilized perioperative analgesics, although it is notable that neither morphine nor ketorolac fully restored incapacitance to baseline levels when used individually or when co-administered. These results are consistent with clinical reports of acute post-TKA pain, which persists despite the use of multimodal analgesia [710]. Interestingly, one of the previously described knee surgery models was characterized by full reversal of pain-associated behaviors using the same analgesics [29]. However, as this model does not involve the placement of implants, it likely induces less severe acute postoperative pain compared to TKA surgery [710]. Our results for gabapentin were partially consistent with clinical findings reporting limited or no efficacy of gabapentin in treating post-TKA pain [34,35]. Specifically, gabapentin improved SFI while it failed to alter incapacitance, suggesting that incapacitance may be a more appropriate surrogate for acute post-TKA pain in this model.

Subsequently, we leveraged our model to identify differentially regulated molecular pathways in DRGs after TKA, selecting a 24h time point to reflect acute postoperative pain. Transcripts associated with inflammation, cytokine signaling, MAPK pathway, and transcription factors were enriched in our analysis. Utilizing established single-cell DRG RNA-seq datasets, it is likely that these transcripts originate from macrophages and Schwann cells, both of which release cytokines and chemokines and are implicated in the pathogenesis of pain [4143]. This is consistent with previous work demonstrating that depletion of myeloid cells (including macrophages) alleviates postoperative pain hypersensitivity [43]. A subset of differentially regulated transcripts observed in our study (e.g., C1qc) are likewise altered in other pain models [44]. Interestingly, the endogenous opioid scavenger Ackr3 [45] was upregulated in TKA rats, and it is tempting to speculate that this may reflect reduced endogenous opioid tone leading to enhanced pain sensitivity.

A recent study of the DRG proteome identified 44 proteins differentially regulated following plantar incision in mice [46], with Annexin A1 emerging as a potential mediator of pain. Surprisingly, there was no overlap between the post-incisional proteomic profile and our transcriptomic results, suggesting that TKA and plantar incision induce distinct changes in gene expression. Furthermore, it should be noted that our sham condition involved anesthesia, skin incision, and suturing, while the proteomic study employed anesthesia alone. Indeed, when comparing the transcriptome of TKA rats to naive controls, 342 transcripts were differentially regulated, including Annexin A1 (S1 Table). Collectively, our results identify transcripts and molecular pathways that are upregulated in response to TKA surgery and highlight the potential roles for macrophages and Schwann cells in acute postsurgical pain.

The ability of this model to replicate TKA surgery and underlying OA pathology while controlling variables such as age, sex, weight, and disease status, may make it a valuable tool to investigate clinical questions regarding post-TKA pain and functional outcomes. This model can also serve as a platform to evaluate novel analgesics and interventions to enhance recovery after surgery. One limitation of the current study is the use of rats as a model system, a quadruped with differing gait patterns compared to humans. Additionally, as the rats preferentially maintained their hind limbs that underwent TKA in an elevated position for several days after surgery, it was not possible to assess evoked pain responses such as paw withdrawal in response to mechanical or thermal stimuli.

Conclusions

We developed a rat TKA model that closely replicates the intraoperative procedures performed during clinical TKA surgery. The model results in postoperative changes in behavior and gait that return to baseline within five weeks. We further show that it can be used to assess postoperative behaviors indicative of pain to evaluate analgesic efficacy. Lastly, our model provides access to postoperative tissues, such as DRGs, to elucidate how changes in gene expression may impact postoperative pain and recovery.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Comparison of DRG transcript levels between TKA and Sham, TKA and naïve, and Sham and naïve groups 24h after TKA or Sham surgery.

(XLSX)

S1 Video. TKA positioning and range of motion.

Video fluoroscopy showing the positioning of the femoral and tibial prostheses through the full range of motion immediately post-implantation.

(MP4)

S2 Video. Normal gait at baseline.

(MP4)

S3 Video. Gait on day 2 after TKA.

(MP4)

S4 Video. Gait on day 35 after TKA.

(MP4)

Data Availability

All data are included within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. All raw data files are available from the Figshare database (accession number(s) 10.6084/m9.figshare.21288051) RNA-seq data have been deposited to the GEO database. The GEO Accession number for these data is GSE195833.

Funding Statement

The study was funded in part by National Institute on Drug Abuse grant DA048002 and the Department of Anesthesiology, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, USA. Komatsu, Uddin, Gordon, DiBua, and Kaczocha received part of their salary from the National Institute on Drug Abuse grant DA048002. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Johannes CB, Le TK, Zhou X, Johnston JA, Dworkin RH. The prevalence of chronic pain in United States adults: results of an Internet-based survey. J Pain. 2010;11(11):1230–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2010.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Patel KV, Guralnik JM, Dansie EJ, Turk DC. Prevalence and impact of pain among older adults in the United States: findings from the 2011 National Health and Aging Trends Study. Pain. 2013;154(12):2649–57. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.07.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Katz JN, Arant KR, Loeser RF. Diagnosis and Treatment of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Review. Jama. 2021;325(6):568–78. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Malemud CJ. Biologic basis of osteoarthritis: state of the evidence. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2015;27(3):289–94. doi: 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bannuru RR, Osani MC, Vaysbrot EE, Arden NK, Bennell K, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, et al. OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019;27(11):1578–89. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2019.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Inacio MCS, Paxton EW, Graves SE, Namba RS, Nemes S. Projected increase in total knee arthroplasty in the United States—an alternative projection model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017;25(11):1797–803. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2017.07.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Notarnicola A, Moretti L, Tafuri S, Vacca A, Marella G, Moretti B. Postoperative pain monitor after total knee replacement. Musculoskelet Surg. 2011;95(1):19–24. doi: 10.1007/s12306-011-0102-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Grosu I, Lavand’homme P, Thienpont E. Pain after knee arthroplasty: an unresolved issue. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(8):1744–58. doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2750-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Liu SS, Buvanendran A, Rathmell JP, Sawhney M, Bae JJ, Moric M, et al. Predictors for moderate to severe acute postoperative pain after total hip and knee replacement. Int Orthop. 2012;36(11):2261–7. doi: 10.1007/s00264-012-1623-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wylde V, Rooker J, Halliday L, Blom A. Acute postoperative pain at rest after hip and knee arthroplasty: severity, sensory qualities and impact on sleep. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97(2):139–44. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2010.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kornilov N, Lindberg MF, Gay C, Saraev A, Kuliaba T, Rosseland LA, et al. Higher physical activity and lower pain levels before surgery predict non-improvement of knee pain 1 year after TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(6):1698–708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pogatzki-Zahn EM, Segelcke D, Schug SA. Postoperative pain-from mechanisms to treatment. Pain Rep. 2017;2(2):e588. doi: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Basbaum AI, Bautista DM, Scherrer G, Julius D. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of pain. Cell. 2009;139(2):267–84. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.09.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lecocq M, Linares JM, Chaves-Jacob J, Coyle T, Roffino S, Eyraud M, et al. Total Knee Arthroplasty with a Ti6Al4V/PEEK Prosthesis on an Osteoarthritis Rat Model: Behavioral and Neurophysiological Analysis. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):5277. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-62146-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pap G, Machner A, Rinnert T, Horler D, Gay RE, Schwarzberg H, et al. Development and characteristics of a synovial-like interface membrane around cemented tibial hemiarthroplasties in a novel rat model of aseptic prosthesis loosening. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44(4):956–63. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Soe NH, Jensen NV, Nurnberg BM, Jensen AL, Koch J, Poulsen SS, et al. A novel knee prosthesis model of implant-related osteomyelitis in rats. Acta Orthop. 2013;84(1):92–7. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2013.773121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Morris JL, Letson HL, McEwen P, Biros E, Dlaska C, Hazratwala K, et al. Comparison of intra-articular administration of adenosine, lidocaine and magnesium solution and tranexamic acid for alleviating postoperative inflammation and joint fibrosis in an experimental model of knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):726. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02871-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Glasson SS, Blanchet TJ, Morris EA. The surgical destabilization of the medial meniscus (DMM) model of osteoarthritis in the 129/SvEv mouse. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15(9):1061–9. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hintz M, Ernest TL, Kondrashov P. Use of the Contralateral Knee as a Control in the Destabilization of Medial Meniscus Osteoarthritis Rat Model. Mo Med. 2020;117(5):457–60. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Thote T, Lin AS, Raji Y, Moran S, Stevens HY, Hart M, et al. Localized 3D analysis of cartilage composition and morphology in small animal models of joint degeneration. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(8):1132–41. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2013.05.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Luk J, Lu Y, Ackermann A, Peng X, Bogdan D, Puopolo M, et al. Contribution of diacylglycerol lipase beta to pain after surgery. J Pain Res. 2018;11:473–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kanaya F, Firrell JC, Breidenbach WC. Sciatic function index, nerve conduction tests, muscle contraction, and axon morphometry as indicators of regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98(7):1264–71, discussion 72–4. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199612000-00023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Afgan E, Baker D, Batut B, van den Beek M, Bouvier D, Cech M, et al. The Galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2018 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(W1):W537–W44. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lenth RV. Java Applets for Power and Sample Size. 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Azim S, Nicholson J, Rebecchi MJ, Galbavy W, Feng T, Rizwan S, et al. Interleukin-6 and leptin levels are associated with preoperative pain severity in patients with osteoarthritis but not with acute pain after total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2018;25(1):25–33. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2017.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wu Y, Lu X, Ma Y, Zeng Y, Bao X, Xiong H, et al. Perioperative multiple low-dose Dexamethasones improves postoperative clinical outcomes after Total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):428. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2359-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Xu H, Zhang S, Xie J, Lei Y, Cao G, Pei F. Multiple Doses of Perioperative Dexamethasone Further Improve Clinical Outcomes After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(11):3448–54. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.06.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Erkilic E, Kesimci E, Sahin D, Bektaser B, Yalcin N, Ellik S, et al. Does preemptive gabapentin modulate cytokine response in total knee arthroplasty? A placebo controlled study. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2018;27(4):487–91. doi: 10.17219/acem/68630 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Buvanendran A, Kroin JS, Kari MR, Tuman KJ. A new knee surgery model in rats to evaluate functional measures of postoperative pain. Anesth Analg. 2008;107(1):300–8. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181732f21 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kroin JS, Buvanendran A, Watts DE, Saha C, Tuman KJ. Upregulation of cerebrospinal fluid and peripheral prostaglandin E2 in a rat postoperative pain model. Anesth Analg. 2006;103(2):334–43, table of contents. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000223674.52364.5c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Majuta LA, Guedon JG, Mitchell SA, Ossipov MH, Mantyh PW. Anti-nerve growth factor therapy increases spontaneous day/night activity in mice with orthopedic surgery-induced pain. Pain. 2017;158(4):605–17. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000799 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Martin TJ, Zhang Y, Buechler N, Conklin DR, Eisenach JC. Intrathecal morphine and ketorolac analgesia after surgery: comparison of spontaneous and elicited responses in rats. Pain. 2005;113(3):376–85. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.11.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Huang ZY, Huang Q, Wang LY, Lei YT, Xu H, Shen B, et al. Normal trajectory of Interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein in the perioperative period of total knee arthroplasty under an enhanced recovery after surgery scenario. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):264. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03283-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kang J, Zhao Z, Lv J, Sun L, Lu B, Dong B, et al. The efficacy of perioperative gabapentin for the treatment of postoperative pain following total knee and hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):332. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01849-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hannon CP, Fillingham YA, Browne JA, Schemitsch EH, Mullen K, Casambre F, et al. The Efficacy and Safety of Gabapentinoids in Total Joint Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Direct Meta-Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(10):2730–8 e6. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.05.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Liang Z, Hore Z, Harley P, Stanley FU, Michrowska A, Dahiya M, et al. A transcriptional toolbox for exploring peripheral neuro-immune interactions. Pain. 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kugelman DN, Mahure SA, Feng JE, Rozell JC, Schwarzkopf R, Long WJ. Total knee arthroplasty is associated with greater immediate post-surgical pain and opioid use than total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021. doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-03951-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Atwood K, Shackleford T, Lemons W, Eicher JL, Lindsey BA, Klein AE. Postdischarge Opioid Use after Total Hip and Total Knee Arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today. 2021;7:126–9. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2020.12.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zhou Z, Yew KS, Arul E, Chin PL, Tay KJ, Lo NN, et al. Recovery in knee range of motion reaches a plateau by 12 months after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(6):1729–33. doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3212-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chiang CY, Chen KH, Liu KC, Hsu SJ, Chan CT. Data Collection and Analysis Using Wearable Sensors for Monitoring Knee Range of Motion after Total Knee Arthroplasty. Sensors (Basel). 2017;17(2). doi: 10.3390/s17020418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.De Logu F, Marini M, Landini L, Souza Monteiro de Araujo D, Bartalucci N, Trevisan G, et al. Peripheral Nerve Resident Macrophages and Schwann Cells Mediate Cancer-Induced Pain. Cancer Res. 2021;81(12):3387–401. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-3326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Koyanagi M, Imai S, Matsumoto M, Iguma Y, Kawaguchi-Sakita N, Kotake T, et al. Pronociceptive Roles of Schwann Cell-Derived Galectin-3 in Taxane-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy. Cancer Res. 2021;81(8):2207–19. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-2799 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ghasemlou N, Chiu IM, Julien JP, Woolf CJ. CD11b+Ly6G- myeloid cells mediate mechanical inflammatory pain hypersensitivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(49):E6808–17. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1501372112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Du H, Shi J, Wang M, An S, Guo X, Wang Z. Analyses of gene expression profiles in the rat dorsal horn of the spinal cord using RNA sequencing in chronic constriction injury rats. J Neuroinflammation. 2018;15(1):280. doi: 10.1186/s12974-018-1316-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Meyrath M, Szpakowska M, Zeiner J, Massotte L, Merz MP, Benkel T, et al. The atypical chemokine receptor ACKR3/CXCR7 is a broad-spectrum scavenger for opioid peptides. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3033. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16664-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pogatzki-Zahn EM, Gomez-Varela D, Erdmann G, Kaschube K, Segelcke D, Schmidt M. A proteome signature for acute incisional pain in dorsal root ganglia of mice. Pain. 2021;162(7):2070–86. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Rosanna Di Paola

26 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-16993Acute postoperative pain and dorsal root ganglia transcriptomic signatures following total knee arthroplasty in ratsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 10 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rosanna Di Paola, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. As part of your revision, please complete and submit a copy of the Full ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines checklist, a document that aims to improve experimental reporting and reproducibility of animal studies for purposes of post-publication data analysis and reproducibility: https://arriveguidelines.org/sites/arrive/files/Author%20Checklist%20-%20Full.pdf (PDF). Please include your completed checklist as a Supporting Information file. Note that if your paper is accepted for publication, this checklist will be published as part of your article.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study was performed at a high level, but there are several technical issues that require correction for publication.

To make a decision on further publication, it is necessary to revise the indicated sections and add mandatory papers with a second review:

+ A shorter and more capacious name that meets modern trends: "Acute postoperative pain and dorsal root ganglia transcriptomic signatures following TKA in rats: experimental study"

+ In the introduction and relevance, it is better not to refer to papers that are 15 years old, it is better to find references up to 5 years old. There are also recent studies regarding the level of pain after TKA, for example DOI: 10.1007/s00167-017-4713-5

+ Where is the conclusion section? The results must be summarized.

+ Line 474 – What document is the link to? And then the URL: ...

+ A level of evidence needs to be added.

Reviewer #2: As the authors point out, there is a need for better animal models of human health problems. Fig 1-3 concern the surgery and functional recovery profile of a rat model of knee replacement. Fig 6 reports RNA-seq data identifying upregulated transcripts and pathways in the acute postoperative period.

My main concern is that the appropriate controls are missing from the figures seeking to demonstrate that clinically utilized perioperative analgesics can reduce the behavioral measures of recovery (Fig 4), and to investigate if the recovery from knee replacement in animals with preexisting OA is altered (Fig 5). The absence of these controls impacts on their validity. A vehicle control is needed in Fig 4 and an OA - sham group needs to be added to Fig 5.

minor points:

I prefer a graph reporting inflammatory mediator changes. Are the levels you measured over the recovery period what you expected based on previously published data?

Fig 4E, why is the before morphine SFI elevated? is this significant cf to before index for the other two groups?

Reconsider how to frame the abstract/introduction and start of discussion. I am not convinced that the severe post-TKA pain state observed in people with OA following TKA is the most compelling argument to use, and the data presented doesn't address the need for larger doses of analgesics at all.

Take care to use the correct terminology when discussing the interpretation of the behavioral outputs measured. Changes in locomotion, rearing and gait are not "pain" per se.

The argument that functional recovery is only partially improved by analgesia would be clearer if incapacitance, SFI, and stride length values from sham animals were somehow indicated in fig 4

Include more information about why DMM was chosen as a OA model and state how long it persists (is the incapacitance level reported in Fig 5C stable for the whole duration of the experimental protocol)

The axis text in Fig 6C is blurred and can not be read in the version supplied. What transcripts were down-regulated in your study?

Would you expect morphine/ketorolac treatment to fully restore incapacitance? In addition to being a pain associated behavior, what else does it capture?

436: .....may reflect reduced endogenous opioid tone leading to enhanced pain sensitivity - but see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.04.011 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.03.012

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 6;17(12):e0278632. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278632.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Oct 2022

¬¬¬Reviewer 1

A shorter and more capacious name that meets modern trends: "Acute postoperative pain and dorsal root ganglia transcriptomic signatures following TKA in rats: experimental study"

We have changed the title in accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion.

In the introduction and relevance, it is better not to refer to papers that are 15 years old, it is better to find references up to 5 years old. There are also recent studies regarding the level of pain after TKA, for example DOI: 10.1007/s00167-017-4713-5

The older citations have been removed and newer citations added, including the suggested study on post TKA pain.

Where is the conclusion section? The results must be summarized.

A conclusion section has been added after the discussion.

Line 474 – What document is the link to? And then the URL: ...

The URL was to a Centers for Disease Control website. This has been removed and a similar manuscript citation has been added.

A level of evidence needs to be added.

The level of evidence is II and this has been added to the end of the abstract.

Reviewer 2

My main concern is that the appropriate controls are missing from the figures seeking to demonstrate that clinically utilized perioperative analgesics can reduce the behavioral measures of recovery (Fig 4), and to investigate if the recovery from knee replacement in animals with preexisting OA is altered (Fig 5). The absence of these controls impacts on their validity. A vehicle control is needed in Fig 4 and an OA - sham group needs to be added to Fig 5.

The reviewer makes a valid point; however, these analyses were designed as a within group pre- to post-drug response and not as a between group vehicle control study. Nevertheless, we did collect vehicle data for incapacitance, which expectedly showed no effect. These data have been added to the revised figure 5 (previously figure 4). Unfortunately, vehicle controls were not collected on the SFI and stride length analyses, so these could not be added. However, saline was used as a vehicle for all of the drugs employed and thus would not be expected to alter SFI or stride length.

As for the OA-sham in Figure 6 (previously figure 5), the intent of this series of experiments was to determine if preexisting OA influenced postoperative pain and recovery following TKA surgery by performing a within group comparison to presurgical baseline values. We elected to use a sham+sham control to determine if repeated surgical procedures affected our outcomes, and it did not. We did not actually compare sham+sham to OA+sham. Moreover, this study was not designed to compare TKA surgery to the natural progression of OA to see if surgery alleviates long-term pain and function. However, this is an intriguing idea that we may explore in a subsequent study.

Minor points:

I prefer a graph reporting inflammatory mediator changes. Are the levels you measured over the recovery period what you expected based on previously published data?

Fig 4E, why is the before morphine SFI elevated? is this significant cf to before index for the other two groups?

We have changed table 1 to the new figure 4.

As for the apparent before morphine elevation, we believe that this merely represents variability observed in this model. This also supports our decision to use a within group pre-post design so that such differences do not adversely impact our results. We did compare the before levels between all groups and they did not significantly differ.

We identified a reference to IL-6 elevation similar to what we observed for a slightly different rat knee surgical model and have added that to the discussion. TNFa is elevated in many OA models, but we could find no references to it after surgical procedures in rats.

Reconsider how to frame the abstract/introduction and start of discussion. I am not convinced that the severe post-TKA pain state observed in people with OA following TKA is the most compelling argument to use, and the data presented doesn't address the need for larger doses of analgesics at all.

We have made minor modifications to these sections; however clinical data support the assertion that pain is higher in TKA patient than other surgeries and this is one of the reasons for the development of this model. We have removed the reference to the clinical use of larger doses of analgesics.

Take care to use the correct terminology when discussing the interpretation of the behavioral outputs measured. Changes in locomotion, rearing and gait are not "pain" per se.

We agree that these are surrogates of pain and have modified our manuscript accordingly.

The argument that functional recovery is only partially improved by analgesia would be clearer if incapacitance, SFI, and stride length values from sham animals were somehow indicated in fig 4

The graphs in figure 5 (previously fig 4) now have lines indicating mean sham values added to them.

Include more information about why DMM was chosen as a OA model and state how long it persists (is the incapacitance level reported in Fig 5C stable for the whole duration of the experimental protocol)

Justification for the DMM model has been added to the Methods section under DMM surgery and is supported by a new reference. We did not continue to measure incapacitance levels beyond 4 weeks for this experiment. However, this model has been studied out to 12 weeks and shows no further changes in incapacitance after 4 weeks (PMID: 27856294, 34136155).

The axis text in Fig 6C is blurred and can not be read in the version supplied. What transcripts were down-regulated in your study?

The font sizes of axes have been increased and now appears clearer. In addition, downregulated transcripts have been added to the volcano plot. These are also listed in Table 1 (formerly Table 2).

Would you expect morphine/ketorolac treatment to fully restore incapacitance? In addition to being a pain associated behavior, what else does it capture?

Our goal in combining morphine/ketorolac was to model commonly used perioperative analgesics. We hypothesized that the combination would be more efficacious than either drug alone but did not expect them to fully restore incapacitance. Incapacitance may also capture differences in proprioception and nerve dysfunction leading to differential weight bearing.

436: .....may reflect reduced endogenous opioid tone leading to enhanced pain sensitivity - but see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.04.011 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.03.012

We are indeed aware of this study and agree that in contrast to the enhanced opioid tone observed upon NaV1.7 deletion, we do not know whether endogenous opioids contribute to pain in our model. Nevertheless, our transcriptomic data offer a tantalizing suggestion of altered opioid function and therefore we highlighted this possibility.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Antal Nógrádi

14 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-16993R1Acute postoperative pain and dorsal root ganglia transcriptomic signatures following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in rats: An experimental studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kaczocha,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers have raised minor points. The correction of these points would further improve the manuscript. Please amend the paper according to their suggestions.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 29 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antal Nógrádi, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Good job on paper! The only thing for the correct presentation in the reference databases and the correct presentation of the work is to categorize the abstract (aim, materials&methods, results, etc.).

Reviewer #2: Thanks to the authors for responding to concerns raised and clarifying some aspects in the text. Fig 6 - especially 6C is still very difficult to read and needs to be improved for publication.

Should Orthop Surg Res. 2021 Dec 20;16(1):726. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02871-y. be referenced in the introduction?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 6;17(12):e0278632. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278632.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Nov 2022

¬¬¬Reviewer 1

Good job on paper! The only thing for the correct presentation in the reference databases and the correct presentation of the work is to categorize the abstract (aim, materials&methods, results, etc.).

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We would like to note that our Abstract is formatted in accordance with journal guidelines (i.e., not categorized).

Reviewer 2

Thanks to the authors for responding to concerns raised and clarifying some aspects in the text. Fig 6 - especially 6C is still very difficult to read and needs to be improved for publication. Should Orthop Surg Res. 2021 Dec 20;16(1):726. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02871-y. be referenced in the introduction?

In accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion, we have enlarged the graphs presented in panel C.

We have also included the aforementioned reference (now #17) in the introduction.

Decision Letter 2

Antal Nógrádi

21 Nov 2022

Acute postoperative pain and dorsal root ganglia transcriptomic signatures following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in rats: An experimental study

PONE-D-22-16993R2

Dear Dr. Kaczocha,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Antal Nógrádi, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Antal Nógrádi

23 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-16993R2

Acute postoperative pain and dorsal root ganglia transcriptomic signatures following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in rats: An experimental study

Dear Dr. Kaczocha:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Antal Nógrádi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Comparison of DRG transcript levels between TKA and Sham, TKA and naïve, and Sham and naïve groups 24h after TKA or Sham surgery.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Video. TKA positioning and range of motion.

    Video fluoroscopy showing the positioning of the femoral and tibial prostheses through the full range of motion immediately post-implantation.

    (MP4)

    S2 Video. Normal gait at baseline.

    (MP4)

    S3 Video. Gait on day 2 after TKA.

    (MP4)

    S4 Video. Gait on day 35 after TKA.

    (MP4)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data are included within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. All raw data files are available from the Figshare database (accession number(s) 10.6084/m9.figshare.21288051) RNA-seq data have been deposited to the GEO database. The GEO Accession number for these data is GSE195833.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES