Severe trauma, surgical excision, inflammation, and other acquired conditions can result in a degree of tissue loss that overwhelms the endogenous skeletal muscle repair mechanisms. Loss of resident cells and structures that promote the primary regenerative process can result in pathological remodeling and tissue fibrosis, resulting in long-term deficits of function and sensation and are referred to as volumetric muscle loss (VML)1,2,3. The inflammatory response to VML injuries involves a well-documented and complex mechanism involving macrophages, cytokines, and myogenic cells that presents many theoretical targets in regenerative medicine4. While many in vitro studies have utilized these targets in animal models of extremity VML treatment, there is a lack of research on skeletal muscle regeneration in animal models of craniofacial VML5,6,7.
Craniofacial tissue loss can result from conditions as described previously, and deficient craniofacial tissue can also occur in congenital conditions such as clefting, which in some cases involves a true volumetric deficiency of muscle tissue8,9. Because muscles of the craniofacial region are important for function as well as aesthetic appearance, long-term effects of VML may have significant psychological affliction. Several aspects of craniofacial skeletal muscle are different from the somite-derived skeletal muscle found in extremities, including variations in gene expression, embryonic origin, satellite cell phenotype, satellite cell quantity, fiber composition, and architecture10,11,12,13. These variations may result in VML injuries affecting craniofacial muscle differently than somite-derived muscle14,15. To date, tissue engineering approaches shown to increase regeneration in animal models of extremity VML have not translated equivalently to craniofacial VML animal models16. This underscores the need to optimize in vivo approaches to animal craniofacial VML models.
While several in vivo studies of craniofacial VML have been conducted, the studies are small and the creation of a robust craniofacial muscle defect in animal models is challenging8,13. Kim et al. reported the development of a mouse masseter VML model. However, this study only evaluated histology until 28 days following injury and had unclear power to detect differences in histologic outcomes between time points17. Rodriguez et al. reported the development of a sheep craniofacial VML model. However, they reported high variability within experimental groups, suggesting heterogeneity in the severity of the initial surgical injury16. Here, we report the protocol of our rat masseter VML model and demonstrate its utility in evaluating tissue-engineering approaches.