4.2 Article

Hindlimb Muscle Atrophy Occurs From Peripheral Nerve Damage in a Rat Neuropathic Pain Model

期刊

BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH FOR NURSING
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 44-54

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1099800410382291

关键词

muscle atrophy; neuropathic pain; peripheral nerve damage; rat

类别

资金

  1. Korean government (MOST) [R01-2007-000-10573-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of neuropathic pain produced by peripheral nerve damage on mass, myofibrillar protein content, and cross-sectional areas of Type I and II fibers of rat hindlimb muscles. Method: Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were assigned to one of three groups: a pain group (n = 10) that underwent ligation and cut of the left L5 spinal nerve, a sham group (n = 10) that underwent a sham cut procedure, or a control group (n = 10) that underwent no procedures. The withdrawal threshold test was done to assess pain threshold on each of Days 1-7 and 14. Activity, body weight, and food intake were measured daily for 2 weeks. At 15 days, rats were anesthetized and the bilateral soleus, plantaris, and gastrocnemius muscles dissected. Results: At 15 days postligation, the pain group had significant decreases in total dietary intake, body weight, activity, and muscle weight as compared to sham and control animals. Muscle weight and cross-sectional area of Type II fiber of the ipsilateral soleus, plantaris, and gastrocnemius muscles decreased as did myofibrillar protein content of the ipsilateral plantaris and gastrocnemius muscles. Muscle weight of the contralateral gastrocnemius muscle decreased, as did myofibrillar protein content and cross-sectional area of Type II fiber of the contralateral plantaris muscle. Conclusion: Hindlimb muscle atrophy occurs in both ipsilateral and contralateral sides following induction of neuropathic pain by unilateral peripheral nerve damage. Muscle changes of the ipsilateral side are more pronounced than those of the contralateral side.

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

4.2
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