4.6 Article

Efficacy of lateral-versus medial-approach hip joint capsule denervation as surgical treatments of the hip joint pain; a neuronal tract tracing study in the sheep

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190052

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Centre [N N308 593240]
  2. KNOW (Leading National Research Centre) Scientific Consortium Healthy Animal-Safe Food, Ministry of Science and Higher Education [05-1/KNOW2/2015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate efficacy of denervation of the of the hip joint capsule (HJC), as a treatment of hip joint pain. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that HJC denervation will significantly reduce the number of sensory neurons innervating the capsule. Study design Denervation of the HJC from a medial or lateral approach was followed by retrograde tracing of sensory neurons innervating the capsule. Animals Twenty adult male sheep (30-40 kg of body weight; Polish merino breed) were used in the study. Methods The hip joint was denervated from medial (n = 5) or lateral (n = 5) surgical approaches. Immediately after denervation, the retrograde neural tract tracer Fast Blue (FB) was injected into the HJC. An additional ten animals(n = 5 for medial and n = 5 for lateral approach) received the same treatment without HJC denervation to provide the appropriate controls. Results Results of the study revealed that the vast majority of retrogradely labelled sensory neurons innervating the HJC originate from fifth lumbar to second sacral dorsal root ganglia. Both the medial and the lateral denervations significantly reduced the number of sensory neurons innervating the HJC (39.2% and 69.0% reduction respectively). Conclusions These results show that denervation of the HJC is an effective surgical procedure for reduction of the sensory neuronal input to the HJC. Moreover, the lateral approach was found to be significantly more effective for reducing sensory innervation as compared to the medial one.

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

4.6
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