Regeneration of nerve crush injury using adipose-derived stem cells: A multimodal comparison.
Tremp M., Sprenger L., Degrugillier L., Schaefer DJ., Madduri S., Schaeren S.
Animal Study, published in Muscle Nerve (2018) — 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
- Animal Study
- Journal
- Muscle Nerve (2018)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 30028517
- PMCID
- PMC6646906
- DOI
- 10.1002/mus.26188
- Citations
- 12
Abstract (original English)
Introduction To restore full function following nerve crush injuries is critical but challenging. In an attempt to develop a viable therapy, we evaluated the effect of rat adipose-derived stem cells (rASC) in 2 different settings of a sciatic crush injury model. Methods In the first group, after 14 days of nerve crush injury, rASCs were injected distal to the lesion under ultrasound guidance. In the other group, alleviation of compression through clip removal (CR) was combined with epineural injection of rASCs. Gait analyses, MRI, gastrocnemius muscle weight ratio (MWR), and histomorphometry were performed for outcome analysis. Results CR combined with rASC injection resulted in less muscle atrophy, as evidenced by MWR. These findings are further supported by better functional and anatomical outcomes. Discussion Animals treated with CR and epineural stem cell injection showed enhanced anatomical and functional recovery. Muscle Nerve 58: 566-572, 2018.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
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.