Beyond conventional therapies: MSCs in the battle against nerve injury.
Song S., Li C., Xiao Y., Ye Z., Rong M., Zeng J.
Narrative Review, published in Regen Ther (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- 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
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Regen Ther (2025)
- Country
- Netherlands
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 39896446
- PMCID
- PMC11782851
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.reth.2024.12.017
- Citations
- 4
Abstract (original English)
Nerve damage can cause abnormal motor and sensory consequences, including lifelong paralysis if not surgically restored. The yearly cost of healthcare in the United States is projected to be $150 billion, and millions of Americans suffer from peripheral nerve injuries as a result of severe traumas and disorders. For nerve injuries, the outcome of conventional therapies is suboptimal and may have unfavorable side effects. However, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been proven to be a viable option for the reconstruction of injured nerve tissue and bring a ray of hope. These stem cells are derived from bone marrow, adipose tissue, and human umbilical cord blood and have the ability to secrete trophic factors, contribute to the immune system, and stimulate axonal regeneration. The purpose of this review is to examine the potential benefits of MSCs for enhancing functional recovery and patient prognosis by highlighting their characteristics and elucidating their mechanism of action in nerve injury healing.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.