PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 100
CHAPTER 4 indicated by the black bracket. (b) CSSs in all spinal cord injured animals with (SCI+670) or without (SCI) red light treatment. (c) CSSs in all sham-injured animals with (shamSCI+670) or without (shamSCI) red light treatment. Green-dashed line indicates hypersensitivity threshold (6.92) derived from control group (see Section 4.3). Statistical comparison between levels in NIC group (vertical bracket, CLMM) and between SCI and SCI+670 groups across the time points (black line, CLMM) are indicated. Data is expressed as mean ± SEM; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. See Figure 4.2 for n values for all groups at each time point. Abbreviations: CSS, cumulative sensitivity score (sum of RSSs); NIC, non-injured control; RSS, regional sensitivity score; SCI, spinal cord injured untreated; SCI+670, spinal cord injured + light-treatment; shamSCI, sham-injured untreated; shamSCI+670, sham-injured + light-treatment. To increase the resolution of the effects of injury and treatment on mechanical hypersensitivity, regional sensitivity scores (RSSs) in 6 regions were analysed (Figure 4.2) which enabled the use of more powerful statistical models. Congruent with the analysis above, the SCI+670 group displayed an overall reduction in mechanical sensitivity compared to the SCI group (p = 0.004, CLMM; Figure 4.2a-d, left panel), and similarly, the shamSCI+670 group also displayed a significant reduction in mechanical sensitivity compared to the shamSCI group (p = 0.006; CLMM; Figure 4.2a-d, right panel). For injured groups, the treatment effect was most evident at 1-dpi (p = 0.012, Figure 4.2a, left) and 3-dpi (p = 0.017, Figure 4.2b, left); a treatment/region interaction was also apparent at 1-dpi, where the At- Level (p = 0.003) and Above-Level (p = 0.014) regions were significantly reduced by red light treatment (Figure 4.2a, left). For the sham-injured groups, the effect of red light was most obvious at 1-dpi (p = 0.031, Figure 4.2a, right) but just failed to reach statistical significance at 7-dpi (p = 0.091, Figure 4.2d, right). The injured groups displayed a strong effect of spinal level (p < 2e-16, CLMM); the Below-Level always displayed the lowest RSSs compared to the other two levels (p ≤ 9e-16), and the highest RSSs occurred at the At-Level (p < 9e-5 compared to Above-Level), irrespective of treatment, side, and time. A region effect was also apparent in the sham-injured groups (p = 0.036); the At-Level was significantly greater than the Above-Level region (p = 0.016), but failed to be significantly greater than the Below-Level region (p = 0.080). There was no significant effect of time (p ≥ 0.37) on mechanical sensitivity for either the SCI or SCI+BPM groups. While the shamSCI group failed to demonstrate a significant time effect (p = 0.096), a time effect was evident for the shamSCI+670 group (p = 0.006). The ipsilateral side had greater RSSs compared to the contralateral side in all injured groups (p = 0.038, CLMM), but not sham-injured groups (p = 0.64). In summary, these results indicated that 1) spinal cord injury elevates mechanical sensitivity scores, but these are not due to surgical procedures; 2) red light treatment reduces mechanical sensitivity scores following spinal cord injury and sham injury; 3) the effects of red light treatment 86PDF Image | Effects of Red Light Treatment on Spinal Cord Injury
PDF Search Title:
Effects of Red Light Treatment on Spinal Cord InjuryOriginal File Name Searched:
Thesis_Di Hu_final.pdfDIY PDF Search: Google It | Yahoo | Bing
Cruise Ship Reviews | Luxury Resort | Jet | Yacht | and Travel Tech More Info
Cruising Review Topics and Articles More Info
Software based on Filemaker for the travel industry More Info
The Burgenstock Resort: Reviews on CruisingReview website... More Info
Resort Reviews: World Class resorts... More Info
The Riffelalp Resort: Reviews on CruisingReview website... More Info
| CONTACT TEL: 608-238-6001 Email: greg@cruisingreview.com | RSS | AMP |