Advancement of Electrospun Nerve Conduit for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: A Systematic Review (2016-2021)
Lee SY., Thow SY., Abdullah S., Ng MH., Mohamed Haflah NH.
Systematic Review, published in Int J Nanomedicine (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Int J Nanomedicine (2022)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 36600878
- PMCID
- PMC9805954
- DOI
- 10.2147/ijn.s362144
- Citations
- 10
Abstract (original English)
Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) is a worldwide problem which hugely affects the quality of patients' life. Nerve conduits are now the alternative for treatment of PNI to mimic the gold standard, autologous nerve graft. In that case, with the advantages of electrospun micro- or nano-fibers nerve conduit, the peripheral nerve growth can be escalated, in a better way. In this systematic review, we focused on 39 preclinical studies of electrospun nerve conduit, which include the in vitro and in vivo evaluation from animal peripheral nerve defect models, to provide an update on the progress of the development of electrospun nerve conduit over the last 5 years (2016-2021). The physical characteristics, biocompatibility, functional and morphological outcomes of nerve conduits from different studies would be compared, to give a better strategy for treatment of PNI.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.