CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 97Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringNerve injury and regenerationVagus Nerve Stimulation Research

Damage in peripheral nerve from continuous electrical stimulation: Comparison of two stimulus waveforms

McCreery, D. B., Agnew, W. F., Yuen, T. G. H., Bullara, L. A.·1992·Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
DOI 10.1007/bf02446202
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The propensity for two types of charge-balanced stimulus waveforms to induce injury during eight hours of continuous electrical stimulation of the cat sciatic nerve was investigated. One waveform was a biphasic, controlled-current pulse pair, each phase 50 microseconds in duration, with no delay between the phases ('short pulse', selected to excite primarily large axons), whereas in the second type each phase was 100 microseconds in duration, with a 400 microsecond delay between the phases (selected to excite axons of a broader spectrum of diameters). The sciatic nerve was examined for early axonal degeneration (EAD) seven days after the session of continuous stimulation. With both waveforms, the threshold stimulus current for axonal injury was greater than the current required to excite all of the nerve's large axons. The correlation between simple stimulus parameters and the amount of EAD was poor, especially with the 'short pulse' waveform, probably due to variability between animals. When the stimulus was normalised with respect to the current required to fully recruit the large axons, a good association between damage and stimulus amplitude emerged. The damage threshold was higher for the 'short pulse' waveform. The implications for clinical protocols are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02446202

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • Little difference between monophasic and biphasic stimuli was noted for delays larger than 80 μs, indicating that the reversing phase has no effect on abolishing action potentials if the inter-phase delay is longer than 80 μs.

    “However, little difference between monophasic and biphasic stimuli was noted for delays larger than 80 μs, indicating that the reversing phase has no effect on abolishing action potentials if the inter-phase delay is longer than 80 μs.”

    From Safety of long-term electrical peripheral nerve stimulation: review of the state of the art (2019) · cites this paper as [45]

  • Amplitudes of up to 3100 μA have been used safely for stimulation of cat sciatic nerves.

    “Amplitudes of up to 3100 μA have been used safely for stimulation of cat sciatic nerves [45].”

    From Safety of long-term electrical peripheral nerve stimulation: review of the state of the art (2019) · cites this paper as [45]

  • A large part of the literature and of our knowledge about neural stimulation is based on animal studies mostly conducted in the 1980s and 1990s.

    “Consequently, a large part of the literature and of our knowledge about neural stimulation is based on animal studies mostly conducted in the 1980s and 1990s [43–45, 62–64, 75, 92, 94, 96, 99, 100].”

    From Safety of long-term electrical peripheral nerve stimulation: review of the state of the art (2019) · cites this paper as [45]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McCreery, D. B., Agnew, W. F., Yuen, T. G. H., & Bullara, L. A.
Affiliations
Huntington Medical Research Institutes (US)
ORCID
McCreery, D. B.
Venue
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1992-01
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
109-114
ISSN
  • 0140-0118 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-0444
DOI
10.1007/bf02446202
OpenAlex
W1976788051
Cited by
97
References
14
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (N01-NS-9-2326)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nerve injury and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Keywords
peripheral nerve injury, sciatic nerve, axonal degeneration, stimulus amplitude, damage threshold
MeSH terms
Animals, Axons, Cats, Electric Injuries, Electric Stimulation, Evoked Potentials, Sciatic Nerve

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