Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Potentially commercializable nerve guidance conduits for peripheral nerve injury: Past, present, and future

Liu C., Sun M., Lin L., Luo Y., Peng L., Zhang J.

Narrative Review on Scar, published in Mater Today Bio (2025) — 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
Mater Today Bio (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
40018056
PMCID
PMC11867546
DOI
10.1016/j.mtbio.2025.101503
Citations
14

Abstract (original English)

Peripheral nerve injuries are a prevalent global issue that has garnered great concern. Although autografts remain the preferred clinical approach to repair, their efficacy is hampered by factors like donor scarcity. The emergence of nerve guidance conduits as novel tissue engineering tools offers a promising alternative strategy. This review aims to interpret nerve guidance conduits and their commercialization from both clinical and laboratory perspectives. To enhance comprehension of clinical situations, this article provides a comprehensive analysis of the clinical efficacy of nerve conduits approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. It proposes that the initial six months post-transplantation is a critical window period for evaluating their efficacy. Additionally, this study conducts a systematic discussion on the research progress of laboratory conduits, focusing on biomaterials and add-on strategies as pivotal factors for nerve regeneration, as supported by the literature analysis. The clinical conduit materials and prospective optimal materials are thoroughly discussed. The add-on strategies, together with their distinct obstacles and potentials are deeply analyzed. Based on the above evaluations, the development path and manufacturing strategy for the commercialization of nerve guidance conduits are envisioned. The critical conclusion promoting commerci

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

Browse all related research

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

Related research