撞击强度与撞击位置对大鼠创伤性颅脑损伤后行为和病理影响的实验研究

doi:10.19562/j.chinasae.qcgc.2025.05.014

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

道路交通事故中，车辆正面碰撞与侧面碰撞所导致的头部伤害结果存在显著差异，这主要是由于撞击位置不同所致。为深入探讨不同撞击强度下头部撞击位置对伤害程度的具体影响，采用大鼠为实验对象实施了针对颅顶和颞叶部位的撞击实验。依据L₄（2³）正交表建立实验方案，综合考虑了撞击强度和撞击位置两个变量，利用BIM-IV型大鼠头部撞击机致伤大鼠。通过伤后大鼠的行为表现及关键脑区的病理学检测结果，系统评估撞击因素及其水平对TBI的伤害影响。实验结果显示，撞击强度是决定头部损伤程度的主导因素，但撞击位置的影响不容忽视。在相同的撞击强度下，相较于颞叶撞击，颅顶撞击更易引发大鼠的昏迷、运动与记忆功能障碍以及焦虑行为。此外，颅顶撞击所导致的病理学损伤高于颞叶撞击的非冲击侧，但低于冲击侧。行为表现与病理学结果的线性拟合分析表明，大鼠脑损伤后的行为变化与病理学检测结果较小的一侧更为吻合。本研究成果对于深入理解头部伤害机制、制定科学的伤害评价准则以及构建有效的防护策略具有重要的意义。

关键词: 创伤性颅脑损伤, 行为学表现, 病理学结果, 撞击位置, 方差分析

Abstract:

In traffic accidents， the results of head injuries resulting from frontal and side impact of vehicles vary significantly， primarily due to the differing impact locations. To investigate the specific effect of impact locations on brain injuries with various impact strengths， experiments are conducted on male rats， focusing on cranial vertex and temporal lobe impact. An experimental protocol is established based on the L₄ （2³） orthogonal table， including impact strength and impact location factors. Rats are injured using the BIM-IV rat head impact machine. The effect of impact factors and their levels on TBI is assessed systematically by behavioral performance and pathological findings of key brain regions in rats. The results show that impact strength is the primary factor influencing head injury， but the effect of impact location is not negligible. At the same impact strength， cranial vertex impact is more likely to cause coma， motor and memory deficits， and anxiety than temporal lobe impact. Furthermore， cranial vertex impact results in higher pathological injuries than the nonimpact side of temporal lobe impact， but lower than the impact side. The linear fitting between behavioral performance and pathological results reveals that post-injury behavioral performance in rats more closely aligns with the pathological outcomes on the less injured side of the brain. The findings of this study are crucial for understanding the mechanisms of head injury， proposing appropriate injury evaluation guidelines， and establishing effective protection strategies.

Key words: traumatic brain injury, behavioral performance, pathological results, impact location, analysis of variance

王鹏,宋学伟,邱金龙,朱细燕,王楠,赵辉. 撞击强度与撞击位置对大鼠创伤性颅脑损伤后行为和病理影响的实验研究[J]. 汽车工程, 2025, 47(5): 940-950.

Peng Wang,Xuewei Song,Jinlong Qiu,Xiyan Zhu,Nan Wang,Hui Zhao. An Experimental Study of the Effect of Impact Strength and Impact Location on the Behavior and Pathology of Traumatic Brain Injury in Rats[J]. Automotive Engineering, 2025, 47(5): 940-950.

图/表 15

表1

实验方案与方差分析计算"

组别	A（撞击位置）	B（撞击强度）	C（空列）	$y i$
1	1（颅顶）	1（0.3 MPa）	1	$y 1$
2	1（颅顶）	2（0.7 MPa）	2	$y 2$
3	2（颞叶）	1（0.3 MPa）	3	$y 3$
4	2（颞叶）	2（0.7 MPa）	4	$y 4$
$y ˉ j 1$	$y ˉ A 1 = y 1 + y 2 2$	$y ˉ B 1 = y 1 + y 3 2$	$y ˉ C 1 = y 1 + y 4 2$
$y ˉ j 2$	$y ˉ A 2 = y 3 + y 4 2$	$y ˉ B 2 = y 2 + y 4 2$	$y ˉ C 2 = y 2 + y 3 2$
$y ˉ$	$y ˉ = ∑ i = 1 4 y i 4$
$S j$	$S j = b a ∑ k = 1 b y j k 2 - 1 a ∑ i = 1 a y i 2$		$S = ∑ i = 1 a y i - y ˉ 2$
$S j$	$S e = S e 1 + S e 2$	$S e 1 = S - S A - S B$	$S e 2 = ∑ i = 1 a ∑ r = 1 T y i r - y ˉ i 2$
$f j$	$f j = b - 1$	$f = a - 1$	$f e 1 = f c$
$f j$	$f e 2 = a T - 1$	$f e = f e 1 + f e 2$
$β j$	$β j = (S j - f j × (S e / f e)) / S × 100 %$
$F j$	$F j = S j / f j S e / f e$
$α j$	$α j$ 是根据 $F j$ 的值查表F表获得
$C v$	$C v$ = $σ e ? / y ˉ$ ， $σ e ?$ = $S e / f e$

表1

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

表2

图6

表3

图7

图8

表4

行为学指标的方差分析结果"

因素	A	B	A	B	A	B	A	B
指标	LRR		mNSS		EPM		MWM
$y ˉ j 1$	14.27	4.07	5.1	2.1	49.9	95	38.5	22.3
$y ˉ j 2$	7.15	17.35	2.6	5.6	79.7	34.6	26.57	42.7
$β j$	15.58%	63.79%	28.36%	58.81%	15.7%	76.53%	12.36%	57.44%
$α j$	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.25	0.05
C_v	28.51%		21.09%		20.45%		25.64%

表4

表5

病理指标的方差分析结果"

指标		A	B	A	B	A	B	A	B
指标		海马体		杏仁核		胼胝体		脑干
$y ˉ j 1$	左	26.8	12.5	41.6	21.4	39.1	22.7	23.2	8.5
$y ˉ j 1$	右	25.9	22.9	40.3	36.5	39.1	22.7	23.2	8.5
$y ˉ j 2$	左	19.6	33.9	32.8	53.0	23.3	39.8	12.5	27.2
$y ˉ j 2$	右	43.1	46.9	58.2	62.0	23.3	39.8	12.5	27.2
$β j$	左	3.7%	78.4%	2.0%	86.8%	35.2%	41.8%	17.5%	64.2%
$β j$	右	21.1%	57.1%	26.8%	59.8%	35.2%	41.8%	17.5%	64.2%
$α j$	左	0.1	0.01	0.25	0.01	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.01
$α j$	右	0.05	0.01	0.05	0.01	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.01
C_v	左	24.1%		20.2%		15.7%		27.4%
C_v	右	22.4%		15.7%		15.7%		27.4%

表5

图9

图10

参考文献 38

1	RICHARDS D C. Relationship between speed and risk of fatal injury： pedestrians and car occupants［J］. Highway Safety， 2010， 16.
2	COURNOYER J， HOSHIZAKI T B. Head dynamic response and brain tissue deformation for boxing punches with and without loss of consciousness［J］. Clinical Biomechanics， 2019， 67：96-101.
3	BLENNOW K， HARDY J， ZETTERBERG H. The neuropathology and neurobiology of traumatic brain injury［J］. Neuron， 2012， 76（5）：886-899.
4	LING H， HARDY J， ZETTERBERG H. Neurological consequences of traumatic brain injuries in sports［J］. Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience， 2015， 66：114-122.
5	BECKWITH J G， GREENWALD R M， CHU J J， et al. Timing of concussion diagnosis is related to head impact exposure prior to injury［J］. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise， 2013， 45（4）：747-754.
6	邹铁方，肖璟，胡林，等. 轿车-行人事故中人体损伤来源与相关性分析［J］. 汽车工程， 2017， 39（7）： 748-753，747.
	ZOU T F， XIAO J， HU L， et al. Human-body injury sources and correlation analysis on car-pedestrian accidents［J］. Automotive Engineering， 2017， 39（7）：748-753，747.
7	ZHANG L， YANG K H， KING A I. Comparison of brain responses between frontal and lateral impacts by finite element modeling［J］. Journal of Neurotrauma， 2001， 18（1）：21-30.
8	ZHOU R， LI Y， CAVANAUGH J M， et al. Investigate the variations of the head and brain response in a rodent head impact acceleration model by finite element modeling［J］. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology， 2020， 8：172.
9	LI Y， ZHANG L， KALLAKURI S， et al. Quantitative relationship between axonal injury and mechanical response in a rodent head impact acceleration model［J］. Journal of Neurotrauma， 2011， 28（9）：1767-1782.
10	XIONG Y， MAHMOOD A， CHOPP M. Animal models of traumatic brain injury［J］. Nature Reviews Neuroscience， 2013，14 （2）：128-142.
11	WEBER B， LACKNER I， HAFFNER-LUNTZER M， et al. Modeling trauma in rats： similarities to humans and potential pitfalls to consider［J］. Journal of Translational Medicine， 2019， 17（1）.
12	王岩，徐晓庆，刘博涵，等. 碰撞车速与车辆类型对行人运动和损伤耦合影响的研究［J］. 汽车工程， 2015， 37（3）： 276-283.
	WANG Y， XU X Q， LIU B H， et al. A study on the coupling influence of impact speed and vehicle type on the movement and injury of pedestrian［J］. Automotive Engineering， 2015， 37（3）： 276-283.
13	DUHAIME A， BECKWITH J G， MAERLENDER A C， et al. Spectrum of acute clinical characteristics of diagnosed concussions in college athletes wearing instrumented helmets［J］. Journal of Neurosurgery， 2012， 117（6）：1092-1099.
14	ROWSON S， DUMA S M. Development of the STAR evaluation system for football helmets： integrating player head impact exposure and risk of concussion［J］. Annals of Biomedical Engineering， 2011， 39（8）： 2130-2140.
15	毛征宇，李泽民，牛文鑫，等. 不同载荷作用下头部生物力学响应仿真分析［J］. 医用生物力学， 2016， 31（6）： 532-539.
	MAO Z Y， LI Z M， NIU W X， et al. Simulation analysis of head biomechanical response under different loading conditions［J］. Medical Biomechanics， 2016， 31（6）： 532-539.
16	MYCHASIUK R， HEHAR H， CANDY S， et al. The direction of the acceleration and rotational forces associated with mild traumatic brain injury in rodents effect behavioural and molecular outcomes［J］. Journal of Neuroscience Methods， 2016， 257：168-178.
17	王国祥，朱林娜，王讯，等. 轻度创伤型大鼠颅脑前后向-侧向碰撞HIC值等效研究［J］. 医用生物力学， 2024， 39（4）： 730-735.
	WANG G X， ZHU L N， WANG X， et al. HIC value of mild traumatic rats under anterior-posterior and lateral-medial craniocerebral impact： an equivalent study［J］. Medical Biomechanics， 2024， 39（4）： 730-735.
18	HODGSON V R， THOMAS L M， KHALIL T B. The role of impact location in reversible cerebral concussion［C］. SAE Paper 831618.
19	SULLIVAN S， EUCKER S A， GABRIELI D， et al. White matter tract-oriented deformation predicts traumatic axonal brain injury and reveals rotational direction-specific vulnerabilities［J］. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology， 2015， 14（4）： 877-896.
20	WANG H， ZHU X， LIAO Z， et al. Novel-graded traumatic brain injury model in rats induced by closed head impacts［J］. Neuropathology， 2018， 38 （5）： 484-492.
21	NAMJOSHI D R， CHENG W， MCINNES K A， et al. Merging pathology with biomechanics using CHIMERA （closed-head impact model of engineered rotational acceleration）： a novel， surgery-free model of traumatic brain injury［J］. Molecular Neurodegeneration， 2014， 9.
22	TAGGE C A， FISHER A M， MINAEVA O V， et al. Concussion， microvascular injury， and early tauopathy in young athletes after impact head injury and an impact concussion mouse model［J］. Brain， 2018， 141（2）： 422-458.
23	KILBOURNE M， KUEHN R， TOSUN C， et al. Novel model of frontal impact closed head injury in the rat［J］. Journal of Neurotrauma， 2009， 26（12）：2233-2243.
24	任露泉. 试验优化设计与分析［M］. 北京：高等教育出版社， 2003.
	REN L Q. Experimental optimization design and analysis ［M］. Beijing： Higher Education Press， 2003.
25	PAVLOVIC D， PEKIC S， STOJANOVIC M， et al. Traumatic brain injury： neuropathological， neurocognitive and neurobehavioral sequelae［J］. Pituitary， 2019， 22（3）： 270-282.
26	AZOUVI P， ARNOULD A， DROMER E， et al. Neuropsychology of traumatic brain injury： an expert overview［J］. Revue Neurologique， 2017， 173（7-8）： 461-472.
27	LIPPERT-GRÜNER M， WEDEKIND C， KLUG N. Outcome of prolonged coma following severe traumatic brain injury［J］. Brain Injury， 2003， 17（1）： 49-54.
28	WALF A A， FRYE C A. The use of the elevated plus maze as an assay of anxiety-related behavior in rodents［J］. Nature Protocol， 2007， 2（2）： 322-328.
29	TUCKER L B， VELOSKY A G， MCCABE J T. Applications of the morris water maze in translational traumatic brain injury research［J］. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews， 2018： 187-200.
30	DENG-BRYANT Y， LEUNG L Y， MADATHIL S， et al. Chronic cognitive deficits and associated histopathology following closed-head concussive injury in rats［J］. Frontiers in Neurology， 2019， 10.
31	TSUDA S， HOU J， NELSON R L， et al. Prolonged hippocampal cell death following closed-head traumatic brain injury in rats［J］. Neuroreport， 2016， 27（10）： 724-729.
32	HALL A N B， JOSEPH B， BRELSFOARD J M， et al. Repeated closed head injury in mice results in sustained motor and memory deficits and chronic cellular changes［J］. Plos One， 2016， 11（7）： e0159442.
33	KAPLAN G B， LEITE-MORRIS K A， WANG L， et al. Pathophysiological bases of comorbidity： traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder［J］. Journal of Neurotrauma， 2018， 35 （2）： 210-225.
34	FENG J F， ZHAO X， GURKOFF G G， et al. Post-traumatic hypoxia exacerbates neuronal cell death in the hippocampus［J］. Journal of Neurotrauma， 2012， 29（6）： 1167-1179.
35	WITGEN B M， LIFSHITZ J， GRADY M S. Inbred mouse strains as a tool to analyze hippocampal neuronal loss after brain injury： a stereological study［J］. Journal of Neurotrauma， 2006， 23（9）： 1320-1329.
36	HOFFMAN A N， PAODE P R， MAY H G， et al. Early and persistent dendritic hypertrophy in the basolateral amygdala following experimental diffuse traumatic brain injury［J］. Journal of Neurotrauma， 2017， 34 （1）：213-219.
37	CREED J A， DILEONARDI A M， FOX D P， et al. Concussive brain trauma in the mouse results in acute cognitive deficits and sustained impairment of axonal function［J］. Journal of Neurotrauma， 2011， 28（4）： 547-563.
38	SMITH D H， NONAKA M， MILLER R， et al. Immediate coma following inertial brain injury dependent on axonal damage in the brainstem［J］. Journal of Neurosurgery， 2000， 93（2）：315-322.

撞击位置	撞击强度/MPa	LRR/min	mNSS/分	EPM/s	MWM/s
颅顶	0.3	4.7±0.5	2.8±0.8	80.6±6.6	25.9±3.1
颞叶	0.3	3.5±0.5	1.4±0.5	109.4±7.6	19.6±2.9
颅顶	0.7	23.9±1.9	7.5±0.9	19.2±4.2	52±5.2
颞叶	0.7	10.8±1.5	3.8±0.8	50±5.6	33.4±3.4

撞击位置		撞击强度/ MPa	海马体/ %	杏仁核/ %	胼胝体/ %	脑干/%
颅顶	左	0.3	13±4	27±7	17±5	10±2
颅顶	右		15±3	26±6	17±5	10±2
颞部	左		11±5	16±8	8±4	7±2
颞部	右		35±8	47±9	8±4	7±2
颅顶	左	0.7	43±7	56±8	41±6	36±6
颅顶	右		43±7	55±10	41±6	36±6
颞部	左		27±7	50±7	18±7	18±6
颞部	右		50±7	69±8	18±7	18±6