Muscle preservation using an implantable electrical system after nerve injury and repair
Abstract
The value of continuous electrical stimulation of denervated muscles after nerve injury and repair has been clearly shown in a series of laboratory experiments in three animal models. This experimental background, which showed improved muscle preservation and better functional results, evolved into a clinical study that included 15 patients with peripheral nerve injuries in the upper extremities, 3 patients with brachial plexus injuries, and three patients with facial nerve paralysis. Improved functional results were obtained using this implantable system, which were similar to those achieved with the animal experiments. All patients had muscle stimulation for extended periods ranging from 127 to 346 days. Analysis of the results showed satisfactory nerve regeneration on clinical examination and with electromyographic studies. Functional muscle analysis varied somewhat from patient to patient, but every patient had a satisfactory to excellent recovery. The results from this study have clearly shown the benefits of continuous muscle stimulation using an implantable electrical system after nerve injury and repair expansion of the project to a larger patient cohort is indicated.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Electrical stimulation delivered through intramuscular or epimysial electrodes has been applied for maintenance of denervated muscles after plexus or peripheral nerve injuries, in order to avoid disuse atrophy.
“Electrical stimulation delivered through intramuscular or epimysial electrodes has been applied for maintenance of denervated muscles after plexus or peripheral nerve injuries, in order to avoid disuse atrophy”
From A critical review of interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of neuroprostheses and hybrid bionic systems (2005) · cites this paper as Nicolaidis and Williams, 2001
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 12 · Cited by 42
- Authors
- Nicolaidis, S. C., & Williams, H. B.
- Affiliations
- Long Island Jewish Medical Center (US)
- Montreal Children's Hospital (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Nicolaidis, Stephen C.
- Venue
- Microsurgery
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 241-247
- ISSN
- 0738-1085 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2752
- OpenAlex
- W2167829168
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 2.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Microsurgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nerve Injury and Rehabilitation
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nerve injury and regeneration
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
- Keywords
- muscle mass preservation, peripheral nerve injury, nerve repair, denervated muscle, brachial plexus injury, facial paralysis, upper limb, nerve regeneration, functional recovery, electromyography
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Arm, Electrodes, Implanted, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Equipment Design, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Peripheral Nervous System Diseases, Prospective Studies, Radial Nerve, Ulnar Nerve, Treatment Outcome, Muscle, Skeletal, 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
