Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38481939›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024

Assessment of focused ultrasound stimulation to induce peripheral nerve activity and potential damage

Bruno Rodríguez-Meana, Eva Santos-Nogueira, Sònia Trujillo-Vázquez, Anette Jakob, Esther Udina, Marc Fournelle, Xavier Navarro

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Bruno Rodríguez-MeanaDepartment of Cell Biology, Physiology and Immunology, Institute of Neurosciences, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain.
Eva Santos-NogueiraDepartment of Cell Biology, Physiology and Immunology, Institute of Neurosciences, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain.
Sònia Trujillo-VázquezDepartment of Cell Biology, Physiology and Immunology, Institute of Neurosciences, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain.
Anette JakobFraunhofer IBMT, Sulzbach, Germany.
Esther UdinaDepartment of Cell Biology, Physiology and Immunology, Institute of Neurosciences, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain.
Marc FournelleFraunhofer IBMT, Sulzbach, Germany.
Xavier NavarroDepartment of Cell Biology, Physiology and Immunology, Institute of Neurosciences, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain.
Biomedical Research Networking Center on Neurodegenerative Diseases · ESFraunhofer Institute for Biomedical Engineering · DEUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Peripheral neuroprostheses are aimed to restore loss of sensory and motor functions by interfacing axons in the peripheral nerves. Most common interfaces in neuroprostheses are electrodes that establish electrical connection with peripheral axons. However, some challenges arise related to long-term functionality, durability, and body response. Recently, focused ultrasound stimulation (FUS) has emerged as a non-invasive approach to modulate the nervous system. However, it is controversial whether FUS can induce axon depolarization. Methods: We have assessed FUS applied in vivo to the rat peripheral nerve, with two objectives: first, to test whether FUS activates peripheral nerves under different stimulation conditions, and second, to evaluate if FUS inflicts damage to the nerve. FUS was delivered with three ultrasound transducers (Sonic Concept H115, H107, and H102) covering the largest set of parameters examined for FUS of peripheral nerves so far. Results: We did not obtain reliable evoked action potentials in either nerves or muscles, under any FUS condition applied, neither over the skin nor directly to the nerve exposed. Additional experiments ex vivo and in vivo on mice, confirmed this conclusion. When FUS stimulation was applied directly to the exposed sciatic nerve, neuromuscular function decreased significantly, and recovered one week later, except for FUS at 0.25 MHz. Histologically, degenerating nerve fibers were observed, with a tendency to be higher with the lower FUS frequency. Discussion: Past reports on the ability of ultrasound to stimulate the peripheral nerve are controversial. After testing a wide range of FUS conditions, we conclude that it is not a reliable and safe method for stimulating the peripheral nerve. Special consideration should be taken, especially when low-frequency FUS is applied, as it may lead to nerve damage.

Indexed as

electrophysiologynerve damagenerve interfacenerve stimulationsciatic nerveultrasound

Identifiers

PMID38481939
PMCPMC10932961
OpenAlexW4392236906

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.