Morphometric Assessment of Peripheral Nerve

  • S. Allpress
  • M. Pollock
  • H. Nukada
Part of the Experimental and Clinical Neuroscience book series (ECN)

Abstract

In the past, peripheral nerve morphometric techniques have been infrequently fully utilized. This has reflected the laborious and time-consuming nature of traditional peripheral nerve morphometry. Now with the availability of computer programmes and direct projection techniques, peripheral nerves can be rapidly and more completely assessed. In this paper we describe inexpensive contemporary techniques of morphometrically assessing peripheral nerve. Single teased nerve fibre analysis gives rapid quantitation of demyelination, remyelination, axonal degeneration and regeneration. A computerised analysis of internodal length provides such statistics as number, mean and coefficient of variation of internodal length and frequency distribution of internodal length. Binomial distribution is used to determine whether demyelinated or remyelinated internodes are grouped or randomly distributed. By using a particle analyser, densities and diameter histograms can be determined and plotted for total, small and large nerve fibre populations. Electron microscopic negatives when directly projected provide such parameters as axonal area, axonal perimeter, whole nerve fibre area, myelin perimeter, number of myelin lamellae, densities of axonal or Schwann cell organelles and indices of axonal or myelin circularity. The use of such morphometric techniques has greatly improved the assessment of peripheral nerve in clinical and experimental settings.

Keywords

Glycerol Epoxy Propylene Aldehyde Neuropathy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashbury, A., and Johnson, P. (1978). In “Pathology of Peripheral Nerve” (J. Bennington, ed.) p. 268. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  2. Behse, F., and Buchthal, F. (1978). Brain 101, 473.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bronson, R., Bishop, Y., and Hedley-White, E. (1978). J. Comp. Neurol. 178, 177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dyck, P. (1975). In “Peripheral Neuropathy” (P. Dyck, P. Thomas and E. Lambert, eds.), p. 296. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  5. Dyck, P., and Lofgren, E. (1966). Mayo Clin. Proc. 41, 778.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dyck, P., and Lofgren, E. (1968). Ned. Clin. North Amer. 52, 885.Google Scholar
  7. Dyck, P., Low, P., Sparks, M., Hexman, L., and Karnes, J. (1980). J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 39, 285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dyck, P., Lais, A., Karnes, J., Sparks, M., Hunder, H., Low, P., and Windebank, A. (1981a). Ann. Neurol. 9, 575.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyck, P., Oviatt, K., and Lambert, H. (1981b). Ann. Neurol. 10, 222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dyck, P., Lais, A., Hansen, S., Sparks, M., Low, P., Parthasarathy, S., and Baumann, W. (1982). Exp. Neurol. 77, 359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moss, J., Meckler, R., and Moss, W. (1979). Am. J. Surg. 138, 736.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Myers, D., Pollock, M., and Calder, C. (1977). Acta Neuro-pathol. (Berl.) 37, 7.Google Scholar
  13. Nukada, H., Pollock, M., and Allpress, S. (1981). Brain, 104, 779.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nukada, H., Pollock, M., and Haas, L. (1983). Brain, 105, 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pollock, M., and Dyck, P. (1976). Arch. Neurol. 33, 33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pollock, M., Nukada, H., Taylor, P., Donaldson, I., and Carroll, G. (1983). Ann. Neurol. 13, 65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Siegel, S. (1956). In “Non parametric statistics for the behavioural sciences”, p. 127. McGraw Hill, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  18. Thomas, P. (1970). J. Neurol. Sci. 11, 285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Humana Press Inc. 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Allpress
    • 1
  • M. Pollock
    • 1
  • H. Nukada
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of Otago Medical SchoolDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations