Plastic compression of a collagen gel forms a much improved scaffold for ocular surface tissue engineering over conventional collagen gels

We compare the use of plastically compressed collagen gels to conventional collagen gels as scaffolds onto which corneal limbal epithelial cells (LECs) are seeded to construct an artificial corneal epithelium. LECs were isolated from bovine corneas (limbus) and seeded onto either conventional uncompressed or novel compressed collagen gels and grown in culture. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) results showed that fibers within the uncompressed gel were loose and irregularly ordered, whereas the fibers within the compressed gel were densely packed and more evenly arranged. Quantitative analysis of LECs expansion across the surface of the two gels showed similar growth rates (p > 0.05). Under SEM, the LECs, expanded on uncompressed gels, showed a rough and heterogeneous morphology, whereas on the compressed gel, the cells displayed a smooth and homogeneous morphology. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) results showed the compressed scaffold to contain collagen fibers of regular diameter and similar orientation resembling collagen fibers within the normal cornea. TEM and light microscopy also showed that cell–cell and cell–matrix attachment, stratification, and cell density were superior in LECs expanded upon compressed collagen gels. This study demonstrated that the compressed collagen gel was an excellent biomaterial scaffold highly suited to the construction of an artificial corneal epithelium and a significant improvement upon conventional collagen gels.

Assessing the effectiveness of robot facilitated neurorehabilitation for relearning motor skills following a stroke

A growing awareness of the potential for machine-mediated neurorehabilitation has led to several novel concepts for delivering these therapies. To get from laboratory demonstrators and prototypes to the point where the concepts can be used by clinicians in practice still requires significant additional effort, not least in the requirement to assess and measure the impact of any proposed solution. To be widely accepted a study is required to use validated clinical measures but these tend to be subjective, costly to administer and may be insensitive to the effect of the treatment. Although this situation will not change, there is good reason to consider both clinical and mechanical assessments of recovery. This article outlines the problems in measuring the impact of an intervention and explores the concept of providing more mechanical assessment techniques and ultimately the possibility of combining the assessment process with aspects of the intervention.