Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27556032›Full record

ReviewBioMed research international2016

Approaches to Peripheral Nerve Repair: Generations of Biomaterial Conduits Yielding to Replacing Autologous Nerve Grafts in Craniomaxillofacial Surgery.

Robert Gaudin, Christian Knipfer, Anders Henningsen, Ralf Smeets, Max Heiland, Tessa Hadlock

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioMed research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Peripheral nerve repair: innovations and future directions.Journal of translational medicine · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Robert GaudinDivision of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, 243 Charles Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9061-7220
Christian KnipferDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.
Anders HenningsenDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Hamburg, Lesserstraße 180, 22049 Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1365-7058
Ralf SmeetsDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0207-5474
Max HeilandDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4987-2913
Tessa HadlockDivision of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, 243 Charles Street, Boston, MA 02114, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peripheral nerve injury is a common clinical entity, which may arise due to traumatic, tumorous, or even iatrogenic injury in craniomaxillofacial surgery. Despite advances in biomaterials and techniques over the past several decades, reconstruction of nerve gaps remains a challenge. Autografts are the gold standard for nerve reconstruction. Using autografts, there is donor site morbidity, subsequent sensory deficit, and potential for neuroma development and infection. Moreover, the need for a second surgical site and limited availability of donor nerves remain a challenge. Thus, increasing efforts have been directed to develop artificial nerve guidance conduits (ANCs) as new methods to replace autografts in the future. Various synthetic conduit materials have been tested in vitro and in vivo, and several first- and second-generation conduits are FDA approved and available for purchase, while third-generation conduits still remain in experimental stages. This paper reviews the current treatment options, summarizes the published literature, and assesses future prospects for the repair of peripheral nerve injury in craniomaxillofacial surgery with a particular focus on facial nerve regeneration.

Indexed as

Nerve RegenerationTissue ScaffoldsAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsEvidence-Based MedicineFacial BonesFacial Nerve InjuriesGuided Tissue RegenerationHumansPeripheral NervesPlastic Surgery ProceduresTissue EngineeringTreatment OutcomeBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

PMID27556032
PMCPMC4983313

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.