Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparisons of the wet mass of bilateral tricipital muscles(g,—X ± s)

From: The effects of different tensile parameters for the neurodynamic mobilization technique on tricipital muscle wet weight and MuRf-1 expression in rabbits with sciatic nerve injury

Group Lesion lateral Normal lateral
Sham group(n = 6) 6.57 ± 0.08 6.65 ± 0.14
Model group(n = 6) 2.48 ± 0.13* 6.73 ± 0.08
NMT-A group(n = 6) 3.27 ± 0.10# 6.67 ± 0.10
NMT-B group(n = 6) 4.07 ± 0.12▲ 6.72 ± 0.10
NMT-C group(n = 6) 2.52 ± 0.10 6.65 ± 0.10
  1. Lesioned lateral compared with normal lateral muscle, *#▲p < 0.05 in the model, NMT-B, NMT-A, and NMT-C group, respectively.
  2. In the lesioned lateral, the wet mass of muscle in the model, NMT-B, NMT-A, and NMT-C group compared with in the sham group, *#▲p < 0.05; wet mass of muscle in the NMT-B and NMT-A compared with in the model group, #▲p < 0.05; the wet mass of muscle in the NMT-B compared with in the NMT-A and NMT-C group, # p < 0.05.