| Title |
Therapeutic effect of epidural hyaluronic acid in a rat model of foraminal stenosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s122861 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francis Sahngun Nahm, Pyung Bok Lee, Ghee Young Choe, Young Jin Lim, Yong Chul Kim |
| Abstract |
Since receiving a warning from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about injection of corticosteroids into the epidural space having serious adverse events, we have sought alternative medications for injection at this site. Hyaluronic acid (HA) has anti-adhesive, anti-inflammatory, and lubricating properties, so could potentially be useful for spinal pain. The exact mechanism by which spinal stenosis develops is not fully understood, but is likely to involve inflammation. Therefore, we hypothesized that HA could have a therapeutic effect in spinal stenosis. This study evaluated the effects of epidural administration of HA on alleviation of pain in a rat model of foraminal stenosis. After creating the animal model, HA (HA group) or saline solution (S group) was administered via an epidural catheter. The paw-withdrawal threshold to mechanical stimulation and motor dysfunction were monitored for up to 21 days. Tissue was collected to evaluate the degree of adhesion, inflammation in the perineural area, and chromatolysis in the dorsal root ganglion (DRG). The mechanical withdrawal threshold was restored in the HA group but not in the S group (P < 0.001). The HA group also showed less fibrosis (P = 0.026) and less chromatolysis (P = 0.002) than the S group. HA administered epidurally had a therapeutic effect on the allodynia and hyperalgesia induced by chronic compression of the DRG. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 17% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 33% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2017.
All research outputs
#18,538,272
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,402
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,222
of 421,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#45
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.