Recent Findings on the Effects of Pharmacological Agents on the Nerve Regeneration after Peripheral Nerve Injury
Bolandghamat S., Behnam-Rassouli M.
Narrative Review, published in Curr Neuropharmacol (2020) — 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
- Curr Neuropharmacol (2020)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 32379588
- PMCID
- PMC7709152
- DOI
- 10.2174/1570159x18666200507084024
- Citations
- 20
Abstract (original English)
Peripheral nerve injuries (PNIs) are accompanied with neuropathic pain and functional disability. Despite improvements in surgical repair techniques in recent years, the functional recovery is yet unsatisfied. Indeed a successful nerve repair depends not only on the surgical strategy but also on the cellular and molecular mechanisms involved in traumatic nerve injury. In contrast to all strategies suggested for nerve repair, pharmacotherapy is a cheap, accessible and non-invasive treatment that can be used immediately after nerve injury. This study aimed to review the effects of some pharmacological agents on the nerve regeneration after traumatic PNI evaluated by functional, histological and electrophysiological assessments. In addition, some cellular and molecular mechanisms responsible for their therapeutic actions, restricted to neural tissue, are suggested. These findings can not only help to find better strategies for peripheral nerve repair, but also to identify the neuropathic effects of various medications and their mechanisms of action.
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.