ArticleNeural regeneration research2019
Axonotmesis-evoked plantar vasodilatation as a novel assessment of C-fiber afferent function after sciatic nerve injury in rats.
Article in Neural regeneration research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phase-Specific Evaluation of Sciatic Nerve Regeneration in Preclinical Studies: A Review of Functional Assessment, Emerging Therapies, and Translational Value.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Correlation Between the Clinical and Histopathological Results in Experimental Sciatic Nerve Defect Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Osteoconductivity and neurotoxicity of silver-containing hydroxyapatite coating cage for spinal interbody fusion in rats.JOR spine · 2023Article
- The role of C-afferents in mediating neurogenic vasodilatation in plantar skin after acute sciatic nerve injury in rats.BMC neuroscience · 2020Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative assessment of the recovery of nerve function, especially sensory and autonomic nerve function, remains a challenge in the field of nerve regeneration research. We previously found that neural control of vasomotor activity could be potentially harnessed to evaluate nerve function. In the present study, five different models of left sciatic nerve injury in rats were established: nerve crush injury, nerve transection/suturing, nerve defect/autografting, nerve defect/conduit repair, and nerve defect/non-regeneration. Laser Doppler perfusion imaging was used to analyze blood perfusion of the hind feet. The toe pinch test and walking track analysis were used to assess sensory and motor functions of the rat hind limb, respectively. Transmission electron microscopy was used to observe the density of unmyelinated axons in the injured sciatic nerve. Our results showed that axonotmesis-evoked vasodilatation in the foot 6 months after nerve injury/repair recovered to normal levels in the nerve crush injury group and partially in the other three repair groups; whereas the nerve defect/non-regeneration group exhibited no recovery in vasodilatation. Furthermore, the recovery index of axonotmesis-evoked vasodilatation was positively correlated with toe pinch reflex scores and the density of unmyelinated nerve fibers in the regenerated nerve. As C-fiber afferents are predominantly responsible for dilatation of the superficial vasculature in the glabrous skin in rats, the present findings indicate that axonotmesis-evoked vasodilatation can be used as a novel way to assess C-afferent function recovery after peripheral nerve injury. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Laboratory Animals of Nantong University of China (approval No. 20130410-006) on April 10, 2013.
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.