ArticleNeural regeneration research2015
Mechanical properties of nerve roots and rami radiculares isolated from fresh pig spinal cords.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical investigation of spinal cord stress changes following ACAF for different subtypes of cervical OPLL.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Finite element analysis of the effects of different ossification types and spinal canal occupancy rates on dynamic spinal cord stress in cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Revised understanding of iatrogenic lumbosacral nerve bowstringing disease: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Effects of cervical rotatory manipulation on the cervical spinal cord: a finite element study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Article
- Tensile mechanical analysis of anisotropy and velocity dependence of the spinal cord white matter: a biomechanical study.Neural regeneration research · 2021Article
- Compression analysis of the gray and white matter of the spinal cord.Neural regeneration research · 2020Article
- Biomechanical analysis of brachial plexus injury: Availability of three-dimensional finite element model of the brachial plexus.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2018Article
- Reduction of vertebral height with fragility vertebral fractures can induce variety of neurological deterioration.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2017Article
- Deterministic Integration of Biological and Soft Materials onto 3D Microscale Cellular Frameworks.Advanced biosystems · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
No reports have described experiments designed to determine the strength characteristics of spinal nerve roots and rami radiculares for the purpose of explaining the complexity of symptoms of medullary cone lesions and cauda equina syndrome. In this study, to explain the pathogenesis of cauda equina syndrome, monoaxial tensile tests were performed to determine the strength characteristics of spinal nerve roots and rami radiculares, and analysis was conducted to evaluate the stress-strain relationship and strength characteristics. Using the same tensile test device, the nerve root and ramus radiculares isolated from the spinal cords of pigs were subjected to the tensile test and stress relaxation test at load strain rates of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100 s(-1) under identical settings. The tensile strength of the nerve root was not rate dependent, while the ramus radiculares tensile strength tended to decrease as the strain rate increased. These findings provide important insights into cauda equina symptoms, radiculopathy, and clinical symptoms of the medullary cone.
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.