Electromagnetic field treatment of nerve crush injury in a rat model: effect of signal configuration on functional recovery.

Bioelectromagnetics · 2007 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 5076

In a rat sciatic nerve crush model with whole-body EMF exposure (bipolar rectangular pulses; 2 pulses/second) at peak magnetic fields of 0.03, 0.3, or 3 mT (vs sham), there was no difference in recovery of toe-spread function compared with sham over 43 days.

Study snapshot

PublicationBioelectromagnetics · 2007

Study typeanimal

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have been demonstrated to enhance mammalian peripheral nerve regeneration in vitro and in vivo. Using an EMF signal shown to enhance neurite outgrowth in vitro, we tested this field in vivo using three different amplitudes. The rat sciatic nerve was crushed. Whole body exposure was performed for 4 h/day for 5 days in a 96-turn solenoid coil controlled by a signal generator and power amplifier. The induced electric field at the target tissue consisted of a bipolar rectangular pulse, having 1 and 0.3 ms durations in each polarity, respectively. Pulse repetition rate was 2 per second. By varying the current, the coils produced fields consisting of sham (no current) and peak magnetic fields of 0.03 mT, 0.3 mT, and 3 mT, corresponding to peak induced electric fields of 1, 10, and 100 microV/cm, respectively, at the tissue target. Walking function was assessed over 43 days using video recording and measurement of the 1-5 toe-spread, using an imaging program. Comparing injured to uninjured hind limbs, mean responses were evaluated using a linear mixed statistical model. There was no difference found in recovery of the toe-spread function between any EMF treatments compared to sham.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeanimal

Effect directionno_effect

PopulationRats (sciatic nerve crush injury model)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureELF · 4 h/day for 5 days

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Peripheral nerve functional recovery (walking function)
Toe-spread (1-5) recovery over 43 days

Limitations

Sample size not reported in the provided abstract/metadata
Outcome assessment described for toe-spread/walking function; other potential regeneration endpoints not reported in the provided abstract
Exposure described as whole-body; tissue-specific dosimetry beyond induced electric field estimates not detailed in the provided abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "animal",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "other",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "4 h/day for 5 days"
  },
  "population": "Rats (sciatic nerve crush injury model)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Peripheral nerve functional recovery (walking function)",
    "Toe-spread (1-5) recovery over 43 days"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a rat sciatic nerve crush model with whole-body EMF exposure (bipolar rectangular pulses; 2 pulses/second) at peak magnetic fields of 0.03, 0.3, or 3 mT (vs sham), there was no difference in recovery of toe-spread function compared with sham over 43 days.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in the provided abstract/metadata",
    "Outcome assessment described for toe-spread/walking function; other potential regeneration endpoints not reported in the provided abstract",
    "Exposure described as whole-body; tissue-specific dosimetry beyond induced electric field estimates not detailed in the provided abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "ELF",
    "bipolar rectangular pulse",
    "solenoid coil",
    "whole-body exposure",
    "sciatic nerve crush",
    "peripheral nerve regeneration",
    "toe-spread",
    "walking function",
    "rat model"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1002/bem.20302
PubMed: 17265446

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library