Back

Airway Diameter-Matched Injury Improves Severity and Reproducibility of Experimental Rabbit Tracheal Stenosis

Laitman, B. M.; Ong, C.; Becker, O.; Anderson, B.; Randall, G. W.; Gonzalez, D.; Reddy, N.; Chen, Y.-W.

2026-07-13 cell biology
10.64898/2026.07.12.738082 bioRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveReliable animal models of tracheal stenosis are necessary for the development and translational testing of anti-fibrotic and regenerative therapies, but existing rabbit models frequently demonstrate substantial variability in stenosis severity, which limits their translational utility. The objective of our study was to determine whether airway diameter-matched mechanical injury improves the severity and reproducibility of experimental tracheal stenosis in a rabbit model, and to evaluate whether rabbit body weight is a reliable surrogate for tracheal luminal diameter during model creation. MethodsFourteen male New Zealand White rabbits (weight range, 2.7-3.5 kg) underwent tracheal injury using steel-bristle brushes introduced through a tracheotomy. Animals were assigned to receive either airway diameter-matched injury, in which brush size was selected to closely approximate the directly measured tracheal lumen diameter, or non-matched injury, in which brush size was selected without regard to measured lumen diameter. At postoperative day 21 (POD21), the injured tracheal segment and a native uninjured segment from the same animal were harvested and compared. Stenosis degree was quantified grossly, and lamina propria-to-cartilage (LP:C) ratio was quantified histologically by three blinded reviewers. The relationship between rabbit weight and airway diameter was assessed, and inter-rater reliability was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). ResultsTwelve of fourteen rabbits reached the POD21 endpoint; two were euthanized early for severe airway compromise meeting humane endpoint criteria, both with approximately 80% stenosis. Injured tracheas demonstrated significantly greater stenosis than native controls (66.0 {+/-} 13.0% vs 16.0 {+/-} 2.7%; p = 0.00012), with a corresponding increase in LP:C ratio (p = 0.031). Airway diameter-matched injury produced significantly greater stenosis than non-matched injury (74.6 {+/-} 6.1% vs 50.6 {+/-} 4.0%; p = 0.001), while LP:C ratio did not differ between injury techniques (p = 1.0). Rabbit weight did not correlate with airway diameter (r = 0.176, p = 0.515; R2 = 0.031). Inter-rater reliability was excellent for both stenosis degree (ICC = 0.989) and LP:C ratio (ICC = 0.992). ConclusionsDirect measurement and matching of injury instrument diameter to native airway diameter substantially improves both the severity and the reproducibility of stenosis in a rabbit tracheal injury model, whereas body weight is an unreliable surrogate for airway size. This optimized, standardized protocol offers a reproducible platform for future translational studies of airway fibrosis and anti-fibrotic or regenerative therapies.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 5%
28.6%
2
American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.9%
3
Journal of Applied Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.9%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 21%
4.7%
5
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
6
npj Regenerative Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
7
ERJ Open Research
47 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
8
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
9
Pulmonary Circulation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
10
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
11
Respiratory Research
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.6%
12
American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
13
The FASEB Journal
194 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
14
JCI Insight
277 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
15
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
16
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.7%
17
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
18
Biophysical Journal
631 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
19
Biomaterials
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
20
Biology Open
156 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
21
Circulation Research
47 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%