Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewPubMedOpen access

Bridging Gaps in Peripheral Nerves: From Current Strategies to Future Perspectives in Conduit Design.

Stocco E., Barbon S., Emmi A., Tiengo C., Macchi V., De Caro R.

Narrative Review, published in Int J Mol Sci (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Int J Mol Sci (2023)
Country
Switzerland
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
37298122
PMCID
PMC10252835
DOI
10.3390/ijms24119170
Citations
56

Abstract (original English)

In peripheral nerve injuries (PNI) with substance loss, where tensionless end-to-end suture is not achievable, the positioning of a graft is required. Available options include autografts (e.g., sural nerve, medial and lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerves, superficial branch of the radial nerve), allografts (Avance ® ; human origin), and hollow nerve conduits. There are eleven commercial hollow conduits approved for clinical, and they consist of devices made of a non-biodegradable synthetic polymer (polyvinyl alcohol), biodegradable synthetic polymers (poly(DL-lactide-ε-caprolactone); polyglycolic acid), and biodegradable natural polymers (collagen type I with/without glycosaminoglycan; chitosan; porcine small intestinal submucosa); different resorption times are available for resorbable guides, ranging from three months to four years. Unfortunately, anatomical/functional nerve regeneration requirements are not satisfied by any of the possible alternatives; to date, focusing on wall and/or inner lumen organization/functionalization seems to be the most promising strategy for next-generation device fabrication. Porous or grooved walls as well as multichannel lumens and luminal fillers are the most intriguing options, eventually also including the addition of cells (Schwann cells, bone marrow-derived, and adipose tissue derived stem cells) to support nerve regeneration. This rev

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 evidence
AnimalsHumansSwineSciatic NervePolyestersPeripheral NervesProstheses and ImplantsPeripheral Nerve InjuriesPolyglycolic AcidNerve Regeneration

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.