Development of Biomaterials for Addressing Upper Extremity Peripheral Nerve Gaps
Smadi BM., Shekouhi R., Azizi A., Chim H.
Narrative Review, published in J Hand Surg Glob Online (2024) — 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
- J Hand Surg Glob Online (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39381386
- PMCID
- PMC11456663
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.01.023
- Citations
- 1
Abstract (original English)
Peripheral nerve injuries within the upper extremities can lead to impaired function and reduced quality of life. Although autografts have traditionally served as the primary therapeutic approach to bridge nerve gaps, these present challenges related to donor site morbidity. This review delves into the realm of biomaterials tailored for addressing nerve gaps. Biomaterials, whether natural or synthetically derived, offer the potential not only to act as scaffolds for nerve regeneration but also to be enhanced with growth factors and agents that promote nerve recovery. The historical progression of these biomaterials as well as their current applications, advantages, inherent challenges, and future impact in the arena of regenerative medicine are discussed. By providing a comprehensive overview, we aim to shed light on the transformative potential of biomaterials in peripheral nerve repair and the path toward refining their efficacy in clinical settings.
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.