William Gemio Jacobsen Teixeira ABSTRACT Teixeira WGJ. Study of the effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor associated with methylprednisolone in experimental acute spinal cord injury in rats [thesis]. São Introduction: There are several proposals to pharmacologically treat traumatic spinal cord injury. Methylprednisolone has already been standardized for clinical use. Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) has been promising in experimental and clinical studies. There is no

more »

... rch on the effect of the association of the two drugs. Objective: to evaluate the effect of combined treatment of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) associated with methylprednisolone in experimental acute spinal cord injury in rats. Material and methods: Forty male Wistar rats were submitted to a moderate spinal cord injury with the NYU-Impactor. The animals were divided into four groups of ten rats each. The Control Group was not treated; the G-CSF Group was treated with G-CSF at the time of injury and daily over the next five days; the Methylprednisolone Group was treated with methylprednisolone for 24 hours; the G-CSF/methylprednisolone Group, was treated with methylprednisolone for 24 hours and G-CSF at the time of injury and daily over the next five days. The animals were kept alive for 42 days; Functional evaluation was performed using the Basso, Beattie and Bresnahan (BBB) score on days 2, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 following the spinal cord injury. Evaluation of motor evoked potentials was held and histological examination of the lesion of the spinal cord was done immediately after euthanasia on day 42. Results and conclusions: The combination of methylprednisolone and G-CSF in the treatment of experimental spinal cord injury in rats promoted neurological improvement as assessed by BBB scale with greater improvement than with methylprednisolone or G-CSF when used alone. The combination of treatment had also a synergistic effect resulting in improvement in histological parameters at the injury site. There was no difference between groups regarding neurophysiological evaluation.