Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28192527›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

The efficacy of a scaffold-free Bio 3D conduit developed from human fibroblasts on peripheral nerve regeneration in a rat sciatic nerve model.

Hirofumi Yurie, Ryosuke Ikeguchi, Tomoki Aoyama, Yukitoshi Kaizawa, Junichi Tajino, Akira Ito, Souichi Ohta, Hiroki Oda, Hisataka Takeuchi, Shizuka Akieda and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Horizon Scanning in Tissue Engineering Using Citation Network Analysis.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hirofumi YurieDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Ryosuke IkeguchiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Tomoki AoyamaDepartment of Physical Therapy, Human Health Sciences, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Yukitoshi KaizawaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Iseikai Yawata Chuo Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Junichi TajinoDepartment of Physical Therapy, Human Health Sciences, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Akira ItoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Souichi OhtaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Hiroki OdaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Hisataka TakeuchiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Shizuka AkiedaCyfuse Biomedical K. K., Tokyo, Japan.
Manami TsujiCyfuse Biomedical K. K., Tokyo, Japan.
Koichi NakayamaDepartment of Regenerative Medicine and Biomedical Engineering Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, Saga, Japan.
Shuichi MatsudaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Kyoto University · JPSaga University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough autologous nerve grafting is the gold standard treatment of peripheral nerve injuries, several alternative methods have been developed, including nerve conduits that use supportive cells. However, the seeding efficacy and viability of supportive cells injected in nerve grafts remain unclear. Here, we focused on a novel completely biological, tissue-engineered, scaffold-free conduit.

methodsWe developed six scaffold-free conduits from human normal dermal fibroblasts using a Bio 3D Printer. Twelve adult male rats with immune deficiency underwent mid-thigh-level transection of the right sciatic nerve. The resulting 5-mm nerve gap was bridged using 8-mm Bio 3D conduits (Bio 3D group, n = 6) and silicone tube (silicone group, n = 6). Several assessments were conducted to examine nerve regeneration eight weeks post-surgery.

resultsKinematic analysis revealed that the toe angle to the metatarsal bone at the final segment of the swing phase was significantly higher in the Bio 3D group than the silicone group (-35.78 ± 10.68 versus -62.48 ± 6.15, respectively; p < 0.01). Electrophysiological studies revealed significantly higher compound muscle action potential in the Bio 3D group than the silicone group (53.60 ± 26.36% versus 2.93 ± 1.84%; p < 0.01). Histological and morphological studies revealed neural cell expression in all regions of the regenerated nerves and the presence of many well-myelinated axons in the Bio 3D group. The wet muscle weight of the tibialis anterior muscle was significantly higher in the Bio 3D group than the silicone group (0.544 ± 0.063 versus 0.396 ± 0.031, respectively; p < 0.01).

conclusionsWe confirmed that scaffold-free Bio 3D conduits composed entirely of fibroblast cells promote nerve regeneration in a rat sciatic nerve model.

Indexed as

Nerve RegenerationTissue ScaffoldsAbsorbable ImplantsAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaCells, CulturedFibroblastsGuided Tissue RegenerationHumansMaleMuscle, SkeletalOrgan SizePeripheral Nerve InjuriesRats, Inbred F344Rats, NudeRecovery of FunctionSilicones

Identifiers

PMID28192527
PMCPMC5305253
OpenAlexW2588997462

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.