ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2026
Influence of Sacral and Thoracolumbar Spinal Nerve Electrical Stimulation on Colonic Motility in Anesthetized Yucatan Male Pigs.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Influence of Sacral and Thoracolumbar Spinal Nerve Electrical Stimulation on Colonic Motility in Anesthetized Yucatan Male Pigs.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColon displays structural and functional diversity. However, the region-specific motility effects of spinal nerves on the colon are unclear. We mapped the regional colonic motor response to thoracolumbar (T12-L1) (TLNS) and sacral (S1-S4) (SNS) roots nerve electrical stimulation (ES) in an anesthetized porcine model, with or without concomitant afferent (AB) or efferent (EB) transmission block.
methodsAdult male Yucatan pigs (n = 16) underwent a laminectomy followed by unilateral (left root) SNS (S1-S4, 30 Hz, 0.3 ms, 0.5 mA, PT, 30 s ON/90 s OFF) or with concomitant AB or EB (40 kHz, 0.1 ms, 2 mA). In a separate group (n = 7), TLNS (T12-L1, 10 Hz, 0.3 ms, 0.5 mA, continuous or 30 Hz, 0.3 ms, 0.5 mA, PT, 30 s ON/90 s OFF) of the left root concomitant with or without EB was applied. Proximal (pC), transverse (tC), distal (dC) colon and anal canal (AC) luminal manometry were monitored before, during and after stimulation. Area under the curve of contraction (AUC), luminal pressure heat maps, and contraction spectral analysis were analyzed. KEY
resultsS2 ES increased the power of the contraction frequency spectrum in both dC and AC during stimulation and increased the AUC of contraction in dC and AC during and post-stimulation. AB and EB partially reduced dC, while EB abolished the increase in AC. In contrast, S1, S3, or S4 ES as well as TLNS had little effect on motility.
conclusionsIn anesthetized male pigs, S2 ES induces a robust motility response in the distal colon via the central network while in the anal canal via efferent pathways.
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.