There are several critical steps in the protocol where special attention is needed to achieve an optimal result. Step 1.4 describes the initial incision and blunt separation of the skin from the superficial masseter fascia. Blunt dissection should be done directly along the skin with scissors pointing away from the underlying muscle and fascia to prevent nicking and unintentionally creating a window through the fascia. The caudal aspect of the superficial masseter should be avoided to prevent unintentional injury to the submandibular vein or external carotid artery. Step 1.5 and 1.6 describe the creation of the fascial window and VML defect, respectively. Care should be taken to ensure the fascial incision is the minimal size required in order to fit the punch biopsy through, as the fascia tends to contract away from the incision, and it can be difficult to locate the edges in step 1.8 if too large an incision is made. Again, blunt dissection beneath the fascia should be done only enough to allow the punch biopsy to fit within the window and angled appropriately to be perpendicular to the mandible. When creating the VML injury, it is important to identify the largest area between the mandibular and buccal branches of the facial nerve. The distal mandibular nerve divides into an upper and lower division, and there is variation in the location where the upper division branches away from the lower division towards the buccal branch of the facial nerve. Because this division courses superiorly, some animals may have the upper division of the mandibular nerve directly in the belly of the masseter where the defect should be created. In these cases, the animal should not be used for analysis, as there will likely be a peripheral nerve injury confounding the data. When creating the punch biopsy, gentle twisting may be required to penetrate the full 5 mm depth. Step 2.4 describes the blotting of the tissue sample after washing it to remove excessive moisture. This is done to prevent ice crystals from forming during the freezing of the tissue and subsequent reduction in freezing artifacts on histology20.
One of the advantages of this method is the ease of access to the superficial masseter muscle and the relative lack of high-risk structures that may be encountered during the surgery. Because the vasculature enters the caudal end of the muscle, significant bleeding can be avoided in the majority of cases. This is important as it not only decreases the risk of morbidity but also increases standardization and decreases the chance that ischemia has a confounding effect on muscle regeneration. Because of the availability of a fascial enclosure, this protocol may be used to evaluate biomaterials in liquid or solid form factors. While an acellular hydrogel was used as an example for this protocol, this method can be replicated to test biomaterials with human stem cell incorporation using immunodeficient rats as has been done in previous studies of extremity VML21.
This study does not formally define the critical size injury in VML, the precise point where endogenous repair mechanisms can no longer regenerate the muscle remains unclear. While it stands to reason that the definition may involve the removal of a certain percentage of the muscle's volume, and indeed 20% is often cited, there is conflicting evidence, and data suggest that other factors, including the location and geometry of injury, age of the animal, among others may also contribute16,21,22,23. Despite this, the observation of fibrous scar and visible contraction of the muscle border observed at 12 weeks following injury (Figure 4A) demonstrates that pathological remodeling has occurred, strongly suggesting that the injuries used here are of critical size with respect to the standard definition.
Because craniofacial muscles in humans, like intrinsic hand muscles, are small compared to proximal limb muscles and carry out more precise movements, they are more prone to having their function impacted by VML. The masseter was selected in this protocol because of adequate bulk for testing and ease of access. However, the geometry and location of injury are important factors in evaluating VML, and conclusions generated using this model may not directly translate to other craniofacial muscles. The masseter is a muscle of mastication, and while it contributes to facial expression in children24, its role in facial expression decreases in adulthood24. Injuries to other muscles of the face, such as the zygomaticus major, may result in greater psychological affliction following VML due to their more direct role in facial expression throughout life relative to the masseter25,26. In addition, this study did not evaluate in vivo force production, a limitation that is an area of need in the field. To date, no reproducible method for craniofacial muscle functional testing with sufficient sensitivity to compare treatment groups has been reported, and this is complicated by the extensive compensatory muscles within the face. Future developments of this protocol will aim to introduce approaches to directly measure force in individual facial muscles.
Alternative methods of histologic analysis of masseter VML in a rodent model are very limited. Kim et al. created a wearable EMG system to assess the functionality of VML-injured masseter muscles in mice. However, their terminal timepoint was 4 weeks, they did not demonstrate the visualization of biomaterial in histology images, did not describe a fascial closure, and focused primarily on validation of their EMG system versus analysis of muscle regeneration and biocompatibility of biomaterials-based treatments17. New treatments are needed for craniofacial volumetric muscle loss, and this masseter VML model is sufficiently reproducible to assess muscle response to VML injury and to evaluate the effects of treatments on regeneration, fibrosis, and contracture, especially in the first 3 months after injury.