Cited by 18Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringNerve injury and regenerationVagus Nerve Stimulation Research

Histological assessment of nerve lesions caused by epineurial electrode application in rat sciatic nerve

Girsch, Werner, Koller, Rupert, Gruber, Helmut, Holle, Jürgen, Liegl, Christian, Losert, Udo, Mayr, Winfried, Thoma, Herwig·1991·Journal of Neurosurgery

Abstract

✓ The left sciatic nerve of 36 rats was exposed and four ring-shaped stainless steel wire electrodes were sutured to the epineurium of each nerve in the same manner as performed clinically for “carousel stimulation” in man. The rats were sacrificed 10 days (Group 1), 3 weeks (Group 2), or 3 months (Group 3) after implantation. The electrodes were excised, the nerves were embedded in Epon, and semithin sections were obtained for histological and planimetric assessment of lesions caused by the epineurially sutured electrodes. The right sciatic nerves served as controls. The total area of neural tissue within the perineurium was determined at three levels: at the site of the electrodes, 8 mm proximal, and 8 mm distal. The area of neural tissue damaged by the surgical procedure was expressed as a percentage of the total area. In Group 1, nine of 12 nerves showed lesions ranging from 0.39% to 25.39% of the total area of neural tissue, in Group 2 eight of 11 sciatic nerves showed lesions ranging from 0.24% to 13.03% of the total area, and in Group 3 five of 12 nerves showed lesions ranging from 0.21% to 4.96% of the total area. The pathologically altered areas in Groups 2 and 3 exhibited distinct signs of nerve fiber regeneration. The reasons for the decrease in damage from Group 1 to Group 3 and the clinical implications of the results for long-term electrical stimulation are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3171/jns.1991.74.4.0636

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • In rat sciatic nerve, altered fascicular area after cuff electrode implantation gradually recovered from 4.74% at 10 days to 0.57% at 3 months.

    “Girsch et al. assessed nerve lesions in the rat sciatic nerve 10 days, 3 weeks, and 3 months after cuff electrode implantation, and noted a gradual recovery from 4.74 to 0.57% of altered fascicular area.”
  • Neural damage induced by implantation and presence of an extraneural electrode is reversible.

    “Girsch et al. and Larsen et al. showed that neural damage induced by the implantation and presence of an extraneural electrode is reversible [53, 54].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Girsch, W., Koller, R., Gruber, H., Holle, J., Liegl, C., Losert, U., Mayr, W., & Thoma, H.
Affiliations
University of Vienna (AT)
Venue
Journal of Neurosurgery
Published
1991-04
Volume
74
Issue
4
Pages
636-642
ISSN
0022-3085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2130809133
Cited by
18
References
20
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of neurosurgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
sciatic nerve, nerve injury, perineurium, nerve fiber regeneration, nerve histology, rat model
MeSH terms
Animals, Electric Stimulation, Electrodes, Implanted, Female, Rats, Inbred Strains, Sciatic Nerve, Time Factors, Rats

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