| Title |
Effects of decompression on behavioral, electrophysiologic, and histomorphologic recovery in a chronic sciatic nerve compression model of streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s125693 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ping-Hui Wang, Cheng-Chang Yang, Wei-Ren Su, Po-Ting Wu, Shun-Chien Cheng, I-Ming Jou |
| Abstract |
To determine susceptibility to decompression surgery in diabetic and nondiabetic peripheral neuropathy using a chronic compression neuropathy model. Twenty-four streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats were randomly divided into three groups: group I, chronic compression of the left sciatic nerve for 4 weeks with decompression; group II, similar without decompression; and group III, sham exposing the sciatic nerve only. The other 24 nondiabetic rats were assigned to groups IV-VI, which received compression-decompression, compression, and the sham operation, respectively. Mixed-nerve-elicited somatosensory evoked potentials (M-SSEPs) and compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) were measured to verify the compression neuropathy in the posttreatment follow-up. Behavioral observations in thermal hyperalgesia tests were quantified before electrophysiologic examinations. Treated and contralateral nerves were harvested for histomorphologic analysis. Chronic compression of sciatic nerve induced significant reduction of amplitude and increment of latency of M-SSEP and CMAP in both diabetic and nondiabetic rats. Diabetic group changes were more susceptible. Decompression surgery significantly improved both sensory and motor conduction, thermal hyperalgesia, and the mean myelin diameter of the rat sciatic nerve in both diabetic and nondiabetic groups. Near full recovery of motor and sensory function occurred in the nondiabetic rats, but not in the diabetic rats 8 weeks postdecompression. Behavioral, electrophysiologic, and histomorphologic findings indicate that decompression surgery is effective in both diabetic and nondiabetic peripheral neuropathy. |
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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 18% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 12% |
| Researcher | 2 | 12% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 29% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
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 01 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,452,475
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,160
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,728
of 311,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#41
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 311,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.