Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesAnimal StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Comparative evaluation of nerve repair and local tissue response following ReFeel<sup>®</sup> nerve cuff implantation in a rat sciatic model

Russell TA., Tzagiollari A., Doherty BO., Burke O., Duffy S., Dorrell P.

Animal Study on Chronic Inflammation, published in Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2026) — 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
Animal Study
Journal
Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2026)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
42110312
PMCID
PMC13150485
DOI
10.3389/fbioe.2026.1759129

Abstract (original English)

Introduction Peripheral nerve injuries (PNIs) pose a persistent clinical challenge, with current repair strategies limited by material biocompatibility, degradation, and regenerative efficacy. This study evaluates the in vivo performance of ReFeel®, a novel bioresorbable alginate-polyglycolic acid (PGA) nerve cuff, in two rat sciatic nerve models, compared to commercial collagen-based repair devices NeuroMatrix® (conduit) and NeuroMend® (wrap). Methods Two studies were conducted in Sprague-Dawley rats using either a 10 mm sciatic nerve gap model (ReFeel® vs. NeuroMatrix®) or a no-gap intact sciatic nerve perineural wrap model (nerve exposed but not transected), comparing ReFeel® with NeuroMend®. Functional, histological, immunohistochemical, and morphometric assessments were performed at 1 week, 8 weeks, and 26 weeks (gap model) and 1 week, 8 weeks, and 13 weeks (wrap model). Tissues were analyzed using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), Masson's trichrome, Safranin-O, NF200, S-100, and toluidine blue staining. Degradation, host response, axon regeneration, Schwann cell activity, and fibrosis were quantified. Results ReFeel® demonstrated superior Schwann cell alignment and axonal regeneration, particularly at 26 weeks, with near-complete scaffold resorption and minimal fibrotic encapsulation. Quantitative scores showed higher axon densities and comparable G-ratios versus NeuroMatrix®

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research