ArticlePloS one2014
Electrical stimulation promotes regeneration of defective peripheral nerves after delayed repair intervals lasting under one month.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the Mechanism of Conditioning Versus Postoperative Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Nerve Regeneration: One Therapy, Two Distinct Effects.Muscle & nerve · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical applications of electrical stimulation for peripheral nerve injury: a systematic review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Pooled it
- The neuroimmune microenvironment of peripheral nerve injury: mechanisms, pathophysiology, and therapeutic implications.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Improving nerve and muscle function: an exploration of targeted nerve function replacement following differential delay periods in a rat model.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Limitations to clinically restoring meaningful peripheral nerve function across gaps and overcoming them.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2025Review
- Advancements in stimulation therapies for peripheral nerve regeneration.Biomedical materials (Bristol, England) · 2024Review
- A Perspective on Electrical Stimulation and Sympathetic Regeneration in Peripheral Nerve Injuries.Neurotrauma reports · 2024Article
- Bioactive polymeric materials and electrical stimulation strategies for musculoskeletal tissue repair and regeneration.Bioactive materials · 2020Review
- Biomedical applications of electrical stimulation.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2020Review
- Electrical stimulation for neuroregeneration in urology: a new therapeutic paradigm.Current opinion in urology · 2019Review
- Review: Bioengineering approach for the repair and regeneration of peripheral nerve.Bioactive materials · 2019Review
- Long-Term Spinal Cord Stimulation Alleviates Mechanical Hypersensitivity and Increases Peripheral Cutaneous Blood Perfusion in Experimental Painful Diabetic Polyneuropathy.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2018Article
- Trace eyeblink conditioning is associated with changes in synaptophysin immunoreactivity in the cerebellar interpositus nucleus in guinea pigs.Bioscience reports · 2018Article
- Anisotropic architecture and electrical stimulation enhance neuron cell behaviour on a tough graphene embedded PVA: alginate fibrous scaffold.RSC advances · 2018Article
- Autologous transplantation with fewer fibers repairs large peripheral nerve defects.Neural regeneration research · 2017Article
- Beta secretase activity in peripheral nerve regeneration.Neural regeneration research · 2017Review
- Effect of electrical stimulation on motor nerve regeneration in sciatic nerve ligated-mice.European journal of translational myology · 2017Article
- Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Axon Regeneration After Peripheral Nerve Injuries in Animal Models and Humans.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2016Review
- Electrical muscle stimulation in thomboprophylaxis: review and a derived hypothesis about thrombogenesis-the 4th factor.SpringerPlus · 2016Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectrical stimulation (ES) has been proven to be an effective means of enhancing the speed and accuracy of nerve regeneration. However, these results were recorded when the procedure was performed almost immediately after nerve injury. In clinical settings, most patients cannot be treated immediately. Some patients with serious trauma or contaminated wounds need to wait for nerve repair surgery. Delays in nerve repair have been shown to be associated with poorer results than immediate surgery. It is not clear whether electrical stimulation still has any effect on nerve regeneration after enough time has elapsed.
methodsA delayed nerve repair model in which the rats received delayed nerve repair after 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, and 2 months was designed. At each point in time, the nerve stumps of half the rats were bridged with an absorbable conduit and the rats were given 1 h of weak electrical stimulation. The other half was not treated. In order to analyze the morphological and molecular differences among these groups, 6 ES rats and 6 sham ES rats per point in time were killed 5 days after surgery. The other rats in each group were allowed to recover for 6 weeks before the final functional test and tissue observation.
resultsThe amounts of myelinated fibers in the distal nerve stumps decreased as the delay in repair increased for both ES rats and sham ES rats. In the 1-day-delay and 1-week-delay groups, there were more fibers in ES rats than in sham ES rats. And the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) and motor nerve conduction velocity (MNCV) results were better for ES rats in these two groups. In order to analyze the mechanisms underlying these differences, Masson staining was performed on the distal nerves and quantitative PCR on the spinal cords. Results showed that, after delays in repair of 1 month and 2 months, there was more collagen tissue hyperplasia in the distal nerve in all rats. The brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and trkB expression levels in the spinal cords of ES rats were higher than in sham ES rats. However, these differences decreased as the delay in repair increased.
conclusionsElectrical stimulation does not continue to promote nerve regeneration after long delays in nerve repair. The effective interval for nerve regeneration after delayed repair was found to be less than 1 month. The mechanism seemed to be related to the expression of nerve growth factors and regeneration environment in the distal nerves.
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.