4.4 Article

Dynamic slow-wave interactions in the rabbit small intestine defined using high-resolution mapping

期刊

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
卷 31, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.13670

关键词

activation; colliding wavefronts; frequency gradient; pacemaker interactions; slow wave

资金

  1. Health Research Council Of New Zealand
  2. Medical Technologies Centre of Research Excellence (MedTech CoRE)
  3. Riddet Institute Centre of Research Excellence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The motility in the small intestine is governed in part by myogenic bio-electrical events, known as slow waves. High-resolution multi-electrode mapping has improved our understanding of slow-wave propagation in the small intestine but has been applied in a limited number of in vivo animal studies. This study applied high-resolution mapping to investigate slow waves in the rabbit small intestine. Methods A high-resolution flexible printed circuit board array (256 electrodes; 4 mm spacing) was applied in vivo to the rabbit intestine. Extracellular slow-wave activity was acquired sequentially along the length of the intestine. Key results and conclusions The majority of the slow waves propagated in the antegrade direction (56%) while retrograde patterns were primarily observed in the distal intestine (29%). Colliding slow-wave events were observed across the length of the small intestine (15%). The interaction of competing pacemakers was mapped in spatiotemporal detail. The frequency and velocity of the slow waves were highest in the duodenum compared to ileum (20.0 +/- 1.2 cpm vs 10.5 +/- 0.9 cpm, P P < 0.05). Inferences In summary, extracellular serosal slow-wave activity was quantified spatiotemporally along the length of the rabbit intestine. In particular, the study provides evidence toward the presence and interaction of slow-wave pacemakers acting along the small intestine and how they may contribute to the slow-wave frequency gradient along the length of the intestine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据