Back to all available

Comparison of acute neuropathy triggered by thiocolchicoside injection via intramuscular or intraneural routes in mice

neurology
pharmacology
public-health

Abstract

Neuropathy triggered after intramuscular (IM) gluteal injection is a prevalent health issue with high morbidity ratio. Our aim is to investigate whether the neuropathic pain post-gluteal injections in mice occurs due to the sciatic nerve damage by the injector or the neurotoxicity of thiocolchicoside (Thio) itself. The acute pain till 48 h post-gluteal injection was analyzed with rotarod, tail-flick, cold plate, Von Frey, and paw grip endurance behavioral tests in noinjection‑received control group and IM and intraneural (IN) Thio or vehicle injection‑received mice. Histopathological examination of sciatic nerve tissue was performed with hematoxylin-eosin staining. Behavioral tests demonstrated that the nociceptive parameters and motor functions of mice in IN-injected groups were significantly different than IM-injected and control groups. The behavioral tests performed post-24 h showed no significant difference between control and IM-injected groups. However, IN-injected groups showed marked and consistent differences until 48 h compared to control. The difference between IM-vehicle and IM-Thio groups at early time points revealed partial, temporary neurotoxic effect of Thio. The histopathologic analyses aligned with the behavioral tests suggesting the substantial effect of IN-injections on axonal and endoneural degeneration compared to control and IM-injected groups. We observed mild, temporary pathologic effect of Thio by diffusion on sciatic nerve. IN-injections caused insistent and severe sciatic nerve damage due to mechanical impact. Our results suggest that to prevent injection-triggered neuropathy, appropriate injection methods and agents should be preferred by the experienced medical personnel.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.