Electrophysiological testing and electrical stimulation in neurological rehabilitation

Electrophysiological assessment of a peptide amphiphile nanofiber nerve graft for facial nerve repair

“…One study did report that a transected rat facial nerve trunk did produce CMAPs, albeit at a significantly slower latency and conduction velocity compared to the intact nerve (Byrne et al, 2005). The paucity of neural ingrowth into the empty tubes on histology (Figure 8b) correlates with the electrical silence after 8 weeks (Figure 6), as the amplitude of a compound nerve action potential is generally related to the number of axons available for stimulation (Claudel et al, 2016).…”

“…Previous studies have demonstrated neural regeneration through a PA nanofiber neurograft in the rat sciatic nerve (Li et al, 2014) and the cavernous nerve (Angeloni et al, 2011; Bond et al, 2011; Choe et al, 2018) although electrophysiological testing was not performed. The myelin sheath surrounds each axon, is produced by Schwann cells, and acts as a capacitor, greatly contributing to the conduction velocity of peripheral nerves (Claudel et al, 2016). Other measurements based on histology and TEM such as axon count or density was avoided due to the risk for selection bias, but clear differences between the disorganized sparsely populated distal stump of the resected nerve and the intact, autograft and neurograft groups can be seen (Figure 9).…”

“…Two forms of electrophysiological testing were used in this study- evoked electromyography (EMG) and direct neural stimulation (Cao et al, 2013; Claudel, A, Lazaro, RT, Wolfe, G, Adams, 2016; Davis, LA, Gordon, TJ, Hoffer, JA, Jhamandas, J, Stein, 1978; Goodnight, Dulguerov, Berke, Lesavoy, & Hoffman, 1995).…”