Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32108590›Full record

ArticleJournal of neural engineering2020

Functional vagotopy in the cervical vagus nerve of the domestic pig: implications for the study of vagus nerve stimulation.

Megan L Settell, Nicole A Pelot, Bruce E Knudsen, Aaron M Dingle, Andrea L McConico, Evan N Nicolai, James K Trevathan, J Ashley Ezzell, Erika K Ross, Kenneth J Gustafson and 8 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neural engineering, 2020. 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 65 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Computational modeling of autonomic nerve stimulation: Vagus et al.Current opinion in biomedical engineering · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Megan L SettellDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States of America. Mayo Clinic, Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Rochester, MN, United States of America.
Nicole A Pelot
Bruce E Knudsen
Aaron M Dingle
Andrea L McConico
Evan N Nicolai
James K Trevathan
J Ashley Ezzell
Erika K Ross
Kenneth J Gustafson
Andrew J Shoffstall
Justin C Williams
Weifeng Zeng
Samuel O Poore
Luis C Populin
Aaron J Suminski
Warren M Grill
Kip A Ludwig
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USDuke University · USLouis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center · USAbbott (United States) · USMayo Clinic in Florida · US

Funding

NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002380 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Felicity T. B. Enders, ANTHONY John WINDEBANK · 2017 to 2026
$6.0M
Modeling Activation and Block of Autonomic Nerves for Analysis and DesignOT2OD025340 · OD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI GRILL, WARREN M. · 2017 to 2021
$5.9M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002380NIH HHS OT2 OD025340
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGiven current clinical interest in vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), there are surprisingly few studies characterizing the anatomy of the vagus nerve in large animal models as it pertains to on-and off-target engagement of local fibers. We sought to address this gap by evaluating vagal anatomy in the pig, whose vagus nerve organization and size approximates the human vagus nerve. APPROACH: Here we combined microdissection, histology, and immunohistochemistry to provide data on key features across the cervical vagus nerve in a swine model, and compare our results to other animal models (mouse, rat, dog, non-human primate) and humans. MAIN

resultsIn a swine model we quantified the nerve diameter, number and diameter of fascicles, and distance of fascicles from the epineural surface where stimulating electrodes are placed. We also characterized the relative locations of the superior and recurrent laryngeal branches of the vagus nerve that have been implicated in therapy limiting side effects with common electrode placement. We identified key variants across the cohort that may be important for VNS with respect to changing sympathetic/parasympathetic tone, such as cross-connections to the sympathetic trunk. We discovered that cell bodies of pseudo-unipolar cells aggregate together to form a very distinct grouping within the nodose ganglion. This distinct grouping gives rise to a larger number of smaller fascicles as one moves caudally down the vagus nerve. This often leads to a distinct bimodal organization, or 'vagotopy'. This vagotopy was supported by immunohistochemistry where approximately half of the fascicles were immunoreactive for choline acetyltransferase, and reactive fascicles were generally grouped in one half of the nerve. SIGNIFICANCE: The vagotopy observed via histology may be advantageous to exploit in design of electrodes/stimulation paradigms. We also placed our data in context of historic and recent histology spanning multiple models, thus providing a comprehensive resource to understand similarities and differences across species.

Indexed as

Vagus Nerve StimulationAnimalsDogsMiceRatsSus scrofaSwineVagus Nerve

Identifiers

PMID32108590
PMCPMC7306215
OpenAlexW3007271119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.