Cited by 14Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic EffectsVagus Nerve Stimulation Research

Recording and stimulating properties of chronically implanted longitudinal intrafascicular electrodes in peripheral fascicles in an animal model

Zheng, Xiujun, Zhang, Jian, Chen, Tongyi, Chen, Zhongwei·2008·Microsurgery

Abstract

The purpose of this experiment was to study the recording and stimulating properties, and biocompatibility of longitudinally implanted intrafascicular electrodes (LIFEs) in a rabbit sciatic nerve model when they were chronically implanted into peripheral fascicles. LIFEs were implanted chronically into sciatic nerve fascicles of rabbits as recording and stimulating electrodes. Motor‐evoked potentials (MEPs) and cortical somatosensory‐evoked potentials (CSEPs) were recorded by using a transcranial stimulation system (TCS) over 6‐month period to observe the change of the signals recorded. At the end of the experiment, the fascicles at the electrodes implanted site were anatomized for histological examination under light microscope and transmission electron microscope. Results showed onset latency (OL) of MEPs and CSEPs had no obvious change during the first month. However, OL significantly increased during the second month, and then became stable 3 months after implantation. The interpeak amplitudes (IPAs) of MEPs had no distinct change during the first month, but significantly decreased over the next period, and then became stable 3 months after implantation. The IPAs of CSEPs, however, decreased slowly over the 6‐month period of the study. At the end of the experiment, histological examination indicated that a typical foreign body reaction developed, and electrodes caused mild damage to the fascicles, though inflammatory cells and neuroma were not seen around the electrodes. In conclusion, LIFEs have excellent recording and stimulating characters in addition to biocompatibility with peripheral fascicles. They can be implanted chronically into fascicles and record signals. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. Microsurgery, 2008.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/micr.20465

Cites

17 of 17 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zheng, X., Zhang, J., Chen, T., & Chen, Z.
Affiliations
  • Qingdao University (CN)
  • Fudan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Zheng, Xiujun
Venue
Microsurgery
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-01
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
203-209
ISSN
  • 0738-1085 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2752
OpenAlex
W1990084364
Cited by
14
References
17
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Microsurgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Intraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Keywords
peripheral nerve recording, peripheral nerve stimulation, sciatic nerve, chronic implantation, motor evoked potentials, somatosensory evoked potentials, onset latency, biocompatibility, foreign body reaction, neuroma, rabbit model
MeSH terms
Animals, Electric Stimulation, Electrodes, Implanted, Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory, Foreign-Body Reaction, Materials Testing, Microsurgery, Neural Conduction, Rabbits, Sciatic Nerve, Time Factors, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Models, Animal

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