The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Contributing factors to poor functional recovery after delayed nerve repair: prolonged denervation
Open accessAbstract
The effects of prolonged denervation, independent from those of prolonged axotomy, on the recovery of muscle function were examined in a nerve cross-anastomosis paradigm. The tibialis anterior muscle was denervated for various durations by cutting the common peroneal nerve before a freshly cut tibial nerve was cross-sutured to its distal stump. Nerve regeneration and muscle reinnervation were quantified by means of electrophysiological and histochemical methods. Progressively fewer axons reinnervated the muscle with prolonged denervation; for example, beyond 6 months the mean (+/- SE) motor unit number was 15 +/- 4, which was far fewer than that after immediate nerve suture (137 +/- 21). The poor regeneration after prolonged denervation is not due to inability of the long-term denervated muscle to accept reinnervation because each regenerated axon reinnervated three- to fivefold more muscle fibers than normal. Rather, it is due to progressive deterioration of the intramuscular nerve sheaths because the effects of prolonged denervation were simulated by forcing regenerating axons to grow outside the sheaths. Fewer regenerated axons account for reinnervation of less than 50% of the muscle fibers in each muscle and contribute to the progressive decline in muscle force. Reinnervated muscle fibers failed to fully recover from denervation atrophy: muscle fiber cross-sectional area being 1171 +/- 84 microns2 as compared to 2700 +/- 47 microns2 after immediate nerve suture. Thus, the primary cause of the poor recovery after long-term denervation is a profound reduction in the number of axons that successfully regenerate through the deteriorating intramuscular nerve sheaths. Muscle force capacity is further compromised by the incomplete recovery of muscle fibers from denervation atrophy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Electrical stimulation promotes sensory neuron regeneration and growth-associated gene expression
Geremia, N. M., Gordon, T., Brushart, T. M., Al-Majed, A. A., & Verge, V. M. K. (2007) · Experimental Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2007.01.040 · Cited by 430
Self-citationGordon, T. (2016) · Neurotherapeutics · doi:10.1007/s13311-015-0415-1 · Cited by 328
Self-citationHöke, A., Gordon, T., Zochodne, D. W., & Sulaiman, O. A. R. (2002) · Experimental Neurology · doi:10.1006/exnr.2001.7826 · Cited by 301
Self-citationImproving peripheral nerve regeneration: From molecular mechanisms to potential therapeutic targets
Chan, K. M., Gordon, T., Zochodne, D. W., & Power, H. A. (2014) · Experimental Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2014.09.006 · Cited by 189
Self-citationCell patterning with a heptagon acoustic tweezer – application in neurite guidance
Gesellchen, F., Bernassau, A. L., Déjardin, T., Cumming, D. R. S., & Riehle, M. O. (2014) · Lab Chip · doi:10.1039/c4lc00436a · Cited by 98
Metadata
- Authors
- Fu, S., & Gordon, T.
- Venue
- The Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Society for Neuroscience
- Published
- 1995-05-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 3886-3895
- ISSN
- 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-2401
- OpenAlex
- W1618653001
- Cited by
- 700
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contributing factors to poor functional recovery after delayed nerve repair: prolonged denervation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.15-05-03886.1995
- The paper
- Fu, S., & Gordon, T. (1995). Contributing factors to poor functional recovery after delayed nerve repair: prolonged denervation. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.15-05-03886.1995
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.