Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsCase Report / SeriesPubMed

Evaluating Stromal Vascular Fraction As a Treatment for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: A Scoping Review.

Jacobs T., Mahoney C., Mohammed S., Ziccardi V.

Case Report / Series on Face & Skin, published in J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • 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
Case Report / Series
Journal
J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2024)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
38621666
DOI
10.1016/j.joms.2024.03.024

Abstract (original English)

Purpose This study aims to investigate the potential of stromal vascular fraction (SVF) for peripheral nerve regeneration. Methods A scoping review of Scopus and PubMed databases was conducted. Inclusion criteria were human or animal studies exploring the use of SVF for peripheral nerve regeneration. Studies were categorized by assessed outcomes: pain assessment, neural integrity, muscle recovery, and functional recovery. Level of evidence and study quality were assessed. Results Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. SVF injection in humans with trigeminal neuropathic pain reduced pain scores from 7.5 ± 1.58 to 4.3 ± 3.28. SVF injection improved sensation in humans with leprosy neuropathy. Repairing transected rat sciatic nerves with SVF-coated nerve autografts improved wet muscle weight ratios (0.65 ± 0.11 vs 0.55 ± 0.06) and sciatic functional index (SFI) scores (-68.2 ± 9.2 vs -72.5 ± 8.9). Repairing transected rat sciatic nerves with SVF-coated conduits increased the ratio of gastrocnemius muscle weights (RGMW) (7-10% improvement), myelinated fibers (1,605 ± 806.2 vs 543.6 ± 478.66), and myelin thickness (5-20% increase). Repairing transected rat facial nerves with SVF-coated conduits improved whisker motion (9.22° ± 0.65° vs 1.90° ± 0.84°) and myelin thickness (0.57 μm ± 0.17 vs 0.45 μm ± 0.14 μm). Repairing transected rat sciatic nerves with SVF-coated nerve allografts

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
Nerve RegenerationAnimalsHumansRatsRecovery of FunctionStromal CellsSciatic NervePeripheral Nerves

Browse all related research

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

Related research