Objective: Identification of peripheral nerve tissue is crucial in both surgery and regional anesthesia. Recently, optical tissue identification methods are presented to facilitate nerve identification in transcutaneous procedures and surgery. Optimization and validation of such techniques require large datasets. The use of alternative models to human in vivo, like human post mortem, or swine may be suitable to test, optimize and validate new optical techniques. However, differences in tissue characteristics and thus optical properties, like oxygen saturation and tissue perfusion are to be expected. This requires a structured comparison between the models. Study Design: Comparative observational study. Methods: Nerve and surrounding tissues in human (in vivo and post mortem) and swine (in vivo and post mortem) were structurally compared macroscopically, histologically, and spectroscopically. Diffuse reflective spectra were acquired (400–1,600 nm) after illumination with a broad band halogen light. An analytical model was used to quantify optical parameters including concentrations of optical absorbers. Results: Several differences were found histologically and in the optical parameters. Histologically nerve and adipose tissue (subcutaneous fat and sliding fat) showed clear similarities between human and swine while human muscle enclosed more adipocytes and endomysial collagen. Optical parameters revealed model dependent differences in concentrations of β-carotene, water, fat, and oxygen saturation. The similarity between optical parameters is, however, sufficient to yield a strong positive correlation after cross model classification. Conclusion: This study shows and discusses similarities and differences in nerve and surrounding tissues between human in vivo and post mortem, and swine in vivo and post mortem; this could support the discussion to use an alternative model to optimize and validate optical techniques for clinical nerve identification. Lasers Surg. Med. 50:253–261, 2018.

Background: During several anesthesiological procedures, needles are inserted through the skin of a patient to target nerves. In most cases, the needle traverses several tissues—skin, subcutaneous adipose tissue, muscles, nerves, and blood vessels—to reach the target nerve. A clear identification of the target nerve can improve the success of the nerve block and reduce the rate of complications. This may be accomplished with diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS) which can provide a quantitative measure of the tissue composition. The goal of the current study was to further explore the morphological, biological, chemical, and optical characteristics of the tissues encountered during needle insertion to improve future DRS classification algorithms. Methods: To compare characteristics of nerve tissue (sciatic nerve) and adipose tissues, the following techniques were used: histology, DRS, absorption spectrophotometry, high-resolution magic-angle spinning nuclear magnetic resonance (HR-MAS NMR) spectroscopy, and solution 2D ¹³C-¹H heteronuclear single-quantum coherence spectroscopy. Tissues from five human freshly frozen cadavers were examined. Results: Histology clearly highlights a higher density of cellular nuclei, collagen, and cytoplasm in fascicular nerve tissue (IFAS). IFAS showed lower absorption of light around 1200 nm and 1750 nm, higher absorption around 1500 nm and 2000 nm, and a shift in the peak observed around 1000 nm. DRS measurements showed a higher water percentage and collagen concentration in IFAS and a lower fat percentage compared to all other tissues. The scattering parameter (b) was highest in IFAS. The HR-MAS NMR data showed three extra chemical peak shifts in IFAS tissue. Conclusion: Collagen, water, and cellular nuclei concentration are clearly different between nerve fascicular tissue and other adipose tissue and explain some of the differences observed in the optical absorption, DRS, and HR-NMR spectra of these tissues. Some differences observed between fascicular nerve tissue and adipose tissues cannot yet be explained but may be helpful in improving the discriminatory capabilities of DRS in anesthesiology procedures. Lasers Surg. Med. 50:948–960, 2018.