ArticleNeural regeneration research2015
Electrical stimulation does not enhance nerve regeneration if delayed after sciatic nerve injury: the role of fibrosis.
Article in Neural regeneration research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Perspective on Electrical Stimulation and Sympathetic Regeneration in Peripheral Nerve Injuries.Neurotrauma reports · 2024Article
- Electrical stimulation of cochlear implant promotes activation of macrophages and fibroblasts under inflammation.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2023Article
- The proteome of distal nerves: implication in delayed repair and poor functional recovery.Neural regeneration research · 2022Article
- Bridging larger gaps in peripheral nerves using neural prosthetics and physical therapeutic agents.Neural regeneration research · 2019Article
- Regulation of Myogenic Activity by Substrate and Electrical StimulationBioResearch open access · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electrical stimulation has been shown to accelerate and enhance nerve regeneration in sensory and motor neurons after injury, but there is little evidence that focuses on the varying degrees of fibrosis in the delayed repair of peripheral nerve tissue. In this study, a rat model of sciatic nerve transection injury was repaired with a biodegradable conduit at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month and 2 months after injury, when the rats were divided into two subgroups. In the experimental group, rats were treated with electrical stimuli of frequency of 20 Hz, pulse width 100 ms and direct current voltage of 3 V; while rats in the control group received no electrical stimulation after the conduit operation. Histological results showed that stained collagen fibers comprised less than 20% of the total operated area in the two groups after delayed repair at both 1 day and 1 week but after longer delays, the collagen fiber area increased with the time after injury. Immunohistochemical staining revealed that the expression level of transforming growth factor β (an indicator of tissue fibrosis) decreased at both 1 day and 1 week after delayed repair but increased at both 1 and 2 months after delayed repair. These findings indicate that if the biodegradable conduit repair combined with electrical stimulation is delayed, it results in a poor outcome following sciatic nerve injury. One month after injury, tissue degeneration and distal fibrosis are apparent and are probably the main reason why electrical stimulation fails to promote nerve regeneration after delayed 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.