ArticleNeurotrauma reports2020
Effect of Intraoperative Electrical Stimulation on Recovery after Rat Sciatic Nerve Isograft Repair.
Article in Neurotrauma reports, 2020. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review to Compare Electrical, Magnetic, and Optogenetic Stimulation for Peripheral Nerve Repair.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2024Review
- Brief Electrical Stimulation Promotes Recovery after Surgical Repair of Injured Peripheral Nerves.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- A Strategy for Magnetic and Electric Stimulation to Enhance Proliferation and Differentiation of NPCs Seeded over PLA Electrospun Membranes.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Electroactive Scaffolds to Improve Neural Stem Cell Therapy for Spinal Cord Injury.Frontiers in medical technology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peripheral nerve injuries, associated with significant morbidity, can benefit from electrical stimulation (ES), as demonstrated in animal studies through improved axonal growth. This study combined the clinical gold standard of isograft repair in a rat model of sciatic nerve injury to evaluate the effects of intraoperative ES on functional tests and histology. Forty rats underwent a surgically induced gap injury to the right sciatic nerve and subsequent repair with an isograft. Half of these rats were randomly selected to receive 10 min of intraoperative ES. Functional testing, including response time to a heat stimulus and motor functional tests, were conducted. Histology of the sciatic nerves and gastrocnemius muscles were analyzed after 6 and 12 weeks of recovery. Rats that underwent ES treatment showed incremental improvements in motor function between weeks 2 and 12, with a significantly higher push-off response than the no-ES controls after 6 weeks. Although no differences were detected between groups in the sensory testing, significant improvements over time were noted in the ES group. Histology parameters, sciatic nerve measures, and gastrocnemius muscle weights demonstrated nerve recovery over time for both the ES and no-ES control groups. Although ES promoted improvements in motor function comparable to that in previous studies, the benefits of intraoperative ES were not detectable in other metrics of this rat model of peripheral nerve injury. Future work is needed to optimize sensory testing in the rodent injury model and compare electrical activity of collagen scaffolds to native tissue to detect differences.
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.