BACKGROUND: Initial studies have shown that low-energy ultrasound stimulates living tissue cells to reduce regeneration or speed up their recovery. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of various ultrasound parameters on the speed of recovery in injured sciatic nerves. METHODS: NMRI mice (n = 200) with injured left paw, caused by crushing their sciatic nerves, were randomly selected. The animals were exposed to ultrasound radiation with various frequencies, intensities, and exposure time. They were allocated into 20 groups (19 treatment and 1 control groups). Sciatic functional index (SFI) test was used to evaluate the difference between the groups with respect to functional efficiency of the sciatic nerve and its recovery. RESULTS: The results of SFI test obtained from the 14th day showed a significant difference among the groups (P<0.05). On the 14th day after treatment, one of the groups (US11) recovered up to 90%. CONCLUSION: Altered ultrasound exposure parameters had more favorable outcomes compared with our previous work.
BACKGROUND: Initial studies have shown that low-energy ultrasound stimulates living tissue cells to reduce regeneration or speed up their recovery. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of various ultrasound parameters on the speed of recovery in injured sciatic nerves. METHODS: NMRI mice (n = 200) with injured left paw, caused by crushing their sciatic nerves, were randomly selected. The animals were exposed to ultrasound radiation with various frequencies, intensities, and exposure time. They were allocated into 20 groups (19 treatment and 1 control groups). Sciatic functional index (SFI) test was used to evaluate the difference between the groups with respect to functional efficiency of the sciatic nerve and its recovery. RESULTS: The results of SFI test obtained from the 14th day showed a significant difference among the groups (P<0.05). On the 14th day after treatment, one of the groups (US11) recovered up to 90%. CONCLUSION: Altered ultrasound exposure parameters had more favorable outcomes compared with our previous work.
Authors: Johan W van Neck; B Stefan de Kool; J Ineke M Hekking-Weijma; Erik T Walbeehm; Gerhard H Visser; Joleen H Blok Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: P D Mourad; D A Lazar; F P Curra; B C Mohr; K C Andrus; A M Avellino; L D McNutt; L A Crum; M Kliot Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Vincent Colucci; Gary Strichartz; Ferenc Jolesz; Natalia Vykhodtseva; Kullervo Hynynen Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2009-08-03 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Sang Chul Park; Se Heang Oh; Tae Beom Seo; Uk Namgung; Jin Man Kim; Jin Ho Lee Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.368
Authors: Brian Y Hwang; David Mampre; A Karim Ahmed; Ian Suk; William S Anderson; Amir Manbachi; Nicholas Theodore Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2021-08-16 Impact factor: 5.315