Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26016986›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Nerve cross-bridging to enhance nerve regeneration in a rat model of delayed nerve repair.

Tessa Gordon, Michael Hendry, Christine A Lafontaine, Holliday Cartar, Jennifer J Zhang, Gregory H Borschel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Axon Regeneration After Peripheral Nerve Injuries in Animal Models and Humans.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2016
    Review
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tessa GordonDepartment of Surgery, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael HendryDepartment of Surgery, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Christine A LafontaineDepartment of Surgery, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Holliday CartarDepartment of Surgery, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jennifer J ZhangDepartment of Surgery, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gregory H BorschelDepartment of Surgery, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAHospital for Sick Children · CASickKids Foundation · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 253172
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are currently no available options to promote nerve regeneration through chronically denervated distal nerve stumps. Here we used a rat model of delayed nerve repair asking of prior insertion of side-to-side cross-bridges between a donor tibial (TIB) nerve and a recipient denervated common peroneal (CP) nerve stump ameliorates poor nerve regeneration. First, numbers of retrogradely-labelled TIB neurons that grew axons into the nerve stump within three months, increased with the size of the perineurial windows opened in the TIB and CP nerves. Equal numbers of donor TIB axons regenerated into CP stumps either side of the cross-bridges, not being affected by target neurotrophic effects, or by removing the perineurium to insert 5-9 cross-bridges. Second, CP nerve stumps were coapted three months after inserting 0-9 cross-bridges and the number of 1) CP neurons that regenerated their axons within three months or 2) CP motor nerves that reinnervated the extensor digitorum longus (EDL) muscle within five months was determined by counting and motor unit number estimation (MUNE), respectively. We found that three but not more cross-bridges promoted the regeneration of axons and reinnervation of EDL muscle by all the CP motoneurons as compared to only 33% regenerating their axons when no cross-bridges were inserted. The same 3-fold increase in sensory nerve regeneration was found. In conclusion, side-to-side cross-bridges ameliorate poor regeneration after delayed nerve repair possibly by sustaining the growth-permissive state of denervated nerve stumps. Such autografts may be used in human repair surgery to improve outcomes after unavoidable delays.

Indexed as

Nerve RegenerationAnimalsAxonsFemaleIsometric ContractionMotor NeuronsMusclesPeroneal NerveRatsSchwann CellsSensory Receptor CellsTibial NerveTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26016986
PMCPMC4446033
OpenAlexW375351285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.