The role of exosomes in peripheral nerve regeneration
Ching RC., Kingham PJ.
Narrative Review, published in Neural Regen Res (2015) — 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
- Neural Regen Res (2015)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 26109947
- PMCID
- PMC4468764
- DOI
- 10.4103/1673-5374.156968
- Citations
- 57
Abstract (original English)
Peripheral nerve injuries remain problematic to treat, with poor functional recovery commonly observed. Injuries resulting in a nerve gap create specific difficulties for axonal regeneration. Approaches to address these difficulties include autologous nerve grafts (which are currently the gold standard treatment) and synthetic conduits, with the latter option being able to be impregnated with Schwann cells or stem cells which provide an appropriate micro-environment for neuronal regeneration to occur. Transplanting stem cells, however, infers additional risk of malignant transformation as well as manufacturing difficulties and ethical concerns, and the use of autologous nerve grafts and Schwann cells requires the sacrifice of a functioning nerve. A new approach utilizing exosomes, secreted extracellular vesicles, could avoid these complications. In this review, we summarize the current literature on exosomes, and suggest how they could help to improve axonal regeneration following peripheral nerve injury.
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.