ArticleAnimal models and experimental medicine2025
Noninvasive electrodiagnostic and motor function assessment of the common fibular nerve regeneration in the rabbit hindlimb.
Article in Animal models and experimental medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Noninvasive electrodiagnostic and motor function assessment of the common fibular nerve regeneration in the rabbit hindlimb.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough widely used, the rat model remains poorly transferable to humans for peripheral nerve regeneration studies. The rabbit is a much better choice from an anatomical perspective. However, it remains little used due to the lack of available literature. The aim of this article is to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of an electrophysiological protocol combined with a motor function assessment to analyze nerve repair.
methodsTen white New Zealand rabbits underwent a 4 cm transection of the fibular nerve. Autograft regeneration over 36 weeks was compared to non-repaired controls. The compound muscle action potential (CMAP) was recorded in the tibialis anterior and the extensor digitorum brevis. An electromyogram (EMG) was obtained after needle insertion and resting muscle activity recording. The electrophysiological results were compared to the toe spread index (TSI), which assesses the motor functional recovery promoted by fibular nerve regeneration.
resultsThe autograft group regeneration starts between weeks 18 and 21 and normal EMG was observed around the 30th week. These electrophysiological results were compared to the well-defined toe spread reflex. This motor test showed a significant functional return of 59% at 36 weeks (p < 0.05). Rabbits regain nearly 80% of their muscle mass.
conclusionNerve conduction allows detection of nerve regeneration of the muscle while electromyography indicates when muscle activity returns to normal. These studies are reliable and non-invasive techniques to evaluate fibular nerve regeneration in the rabbit's hindlimb. Nonetheless, it is necessary to have qualified personnel, since inter-manipulator variations have been observed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.