ArticleJAMA facial plastic surgery
Whisking recovery after automated mechanical stimulation during facial nerve regeneration.
Article in JAMA facial plastic surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toward the Bionic Face: A Novel Neuroprosthetic Device Paradigm for Facial Reanimation Consisting of Neural Blockade and Functional Electrical Stimulation.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2019Article
- Biodegradable Nerve Guide with Glial Cell Line-Derived Neurotrophic Factor Improves Recovery After Facial Nerve Injury in Rats.Facial plastic surgery & aesthetic medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Recovery from facial nerve transection is typically poor, but daily mechanical stimulation of the face in rats has been reported to remarkably enhance functional recovery after facial nerve transection and suture repair. This phenomenon needs additional investigation because of its important clinical implications. OBJECTIVE To determine whether automated mechanical stimulation of the whisker pad improves whisking recovery after facial nerve transection and repair in a rat model. DESIGN AND SETTING Sixty-one rats underwent unilateral facial nerve transection and suture repair and were randomized into 8 groups. Six groups received daily automated whisker or whisker pad mechanical stimulation including 0.5-, 1.5-, and 8.0-Hz patterns. Two control groups received restraint without stimulation. Treatment started on postoperative day 8, occurred 5 days per week, and lasted throughout 15 weeks of recovery. Whisking amplitude, velocity, and acceleration were quantified weekly for 15 weeks. INTERVENTIONS Unilateral facial nerve transection, suture repair, and, for 6 groups, daily automated whisker or whisker pad mechanical stimulation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Quantification of whisking amplitude, velocity, and acceleration. RESULTS Rats receiving the low frequencies of stimulation of the whiskers or whisker pad did not demonstrate enhanced whisking recovery, and rats receiving stimulation at 8.0 Hz showed significantly worse whisking recovery compared with controls and previously published groups receiving lower dose manual stimulation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although daily manual whisker pad stimulation has been shown to enhance whisking recovery, rats in this study did not demonstrate improved whisking recovery after automated mechanical stimulation across a wide range of driving frequencies. Moreover, faster stimulation (8.0 Hz) was actually detrimental to recovery. Further work is needed to understand the relationship between stimulation patterns and the physiologic mechanisms underlying improved or worsened functional outcomes after facial nerve transection and repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.