Cited by 177Nerve injury and regenerationNerve Injury and RehabilitationPeripheral Nerve Disorders

Electrical stimulation enhances sensory recovery: A randomized controlled trial

Wong, Joshua N., Olson, Jaret L., Morhart, Michael J., Chan, K. Ming·2015·Annals of Neurology

Abstract

Objective: Brief postsurgical electrical stimulation (ES) has been shown to enhance peripheral nerve regeneration in animal models following axotomy and crush injury. However, whether this treatment is beneficial in humans with sensory nerve injury has not been tested. The goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that ES would enhance sensory nerve regeneration following digital nerve transection compared to surgery alone. Methods: Patients with complete digital nerve transection underwent epineurial nerve repair. After coaptation of the severed nerve ends, fine wire electrodes were implanted before skin closure. Postoperatively, patients were randomized to receiving either 1 hour of 20Hz continuous ES or sham stimulation in a double‐blinded manner. Patients were followed monthly for 6 months by a blinded evaluator to monitor physiological recovery of spatial discrimination, pressure threshold, and quantitative small fiber sensory testing. Functional disability was measured using the Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire. Results: A total of 36 patients were recruited, with 18 in each group. Those in the ES group showed consistently greater improvements in all sensory modalities by 5 to 6 months postoperatively compared to the controls. Although there was a trend of greater functional improvements in the ES group, it was not statistically significant ( p > 0.01). Interpretation: Postsurgical ES enhanced sensory reinnervation in patients who sustained complete digital nerve transection. The conferred benefits apply to a wide range of sensory functions. Ann Neurol 2015;77:996–1006

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ana.24397

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wong, J. N., Olson, J. L., Morhart, M. J., & Chan, K. M.
Affiliations
  • Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry
  • University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Chan, K. Ming
Venue
Annals of Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-05-04
Volume
77
Issue
6
Pages
996-1006
ISSN
  • 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8249
OpenAlex
W1960026168
Cited by
177
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
4.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (RMF82496)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nerve injury and regeneration
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nerve Injury and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Peripheral Nerve Disorders
Keywords
electrical stimulation, sensory nerve regeneration, sensory reinnervation, pressure threshold, spatial discrimination, postoperative rehabilitation, peripheral nerve injury
MeSH terms
Adult, Disability Evaluation, Double-Blind Method, Electrodes, Implanted, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Female, Finger Injuries, Fingers, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nerve Regeneration, Peripheral Nerves, Treatment Outcome, Recovery of Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review