Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewPubMedOpen access

The Role of Stem Cells in Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: A Narrative Review.

G D., B H S.

Narrative Review on Hair & Scalp, published in Cureus (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
Cureus (2025)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
41050034
PMCID
PMC12489869
DOI
10.7759/cureus.91459

Abstract (original English)

Stem cell therapies are gaining attention as a potential strategy for promoting recovery in peripheral nerve injuries. These injuries, particularly in complex anatomical regions, often lead to long-term functional deficits. There is a pressing need to explore novel therapeutic approaches. Experimental studies have shown that various stem cell types possess regenerative capabilities. This review synthesizes existing experimental and clinical evidence, highlighting the types of stem cells investigated, their mechanisms of action, and reported functional outcomes. Among them, adipose-derived and bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells have demonstrated consistent improvements in nerve function and structural repair. Other cell types, including hair follicle and dental pulp stem cells, have also shown promising outcomes in preclinical models. Clinical studies remain limited, with only a few reporting partial recovery and minimal adverse effects. However, the overall quality of clinical evidence is low, limiting the strength of conclusions. The current evidence suggests potential, but it remains insufficient for broad clinical application. The review identifies key knowledge gaps, such as limited large-scale human trials, and underscores the need for high-quality research to determine the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of stem cell-based therapies for peripheral nerve repair.

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