The effect of stem cells in bridging peripheral nerve defects: a meta-analysis.
Hundepool CA., Nijhuis TH., Mohseny B., Selles RW., Hovius SE.
Meta-analysis, published in J Neurosurg (2014) — 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
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- J Neurosurg (2014)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 24816327
- DOI
- 10.3171/2014.4.JNS131260
Abstract (original English)
OBJECT.: For decades the gold standard for reconstructing a large peripheral nerve defect has been, and remains, the nerve autograft. Alternatives to the nerve autograft include biological conduits and vessels. Adding stem cells in the lumen of a nerve conduit has been the subject of multiple studies. The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to summarize animal experimental studies on the effect of stem cells as a luminal additive when reconstructing a peripheral nerve defect with a nerve graft. A literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed from inception to April 2012, searching for animal experiments on peripheral nerve reconstruction models in which a nerve conduit was used with and without the support of 3 different types of stem cells. Stem cells were analyzed according to their origin: bone marrow, adipose tissue, and other origins. Included studies had consistent outcome measurements: walking track analysis, muscle mass ratio, and electrophysiology. Forty-four studies were included in the final analysis. Forest plots of the 3 outcome measurements (walking track analysis, muscle mass ratio, and electrophysiology) showed positive effects of stem cells on the regeneration of peripheral nerves at different time points. Almost all comparisons showed significant differences for all 3 stem cells groups compared with a control group in which stem cell
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.