ArticleNeural regeneration research2017
Scaffoldless tissue-engineered nerve conduit promotes peripheral nerve regeneration and functional recovery after tibial nerve injury in rats.
Article in Neural regeneration research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Stem Cells and Tissue Engineering-Based Therapeutic Interventions: Promising Strategies to Improve Peripheral Nerve Regeneration.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2023Review
- Recent Developments of Silk-Based Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Applications: A Special Focus on the Advancement of 3D Printing.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Translating musculoskeletal bioengineering into tissue regeneration therapies.Science translational medicine · 2022Review
- Review
- Tissue-Engineered Skeletal Muscle Models to Study Muscle Function, Plasticity, and Disease.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Review
- Polypyrrole-Incorporated Conducting Constructs for Tissue Engineering Applications: A Review.Bioelectricity · 2020Review
- Novel conductive polypyrrole/silk fibroin scaffold for neural tissue repair.Neural regeneration research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Damage to peripheral nerve tissue may cause loss of function in both the nerve and the targeted muscles it innervates. This study compared the repair capability of engineered nerve conduit (ENC), engineered fibroblast conduit (EFC), and autograft in a 10-mm tibial nerve gap. ENCs were fabricated utilizing primary fibroblasts and the nerve cells of rats on embryonic day 15 (E15). EFCs were fabricated utilizing primary fibroblasts only. Following a 12-week recovery, nerve repair was assessed by measuring contractile properties in the medial gastrocnemius muscle, distal motor nerve conduction velocity in the lateral gastrocnemius, and histology of muscle and nerve. The autografts, ENCs and EFCs reestablished 96%, 87% and 84% of native distal motor nerve conduction velocity in the lateral gastrocnemius, 100%, 44% and 44% of native specific force of medical gastrocnemius, and 63%, 61% and 67% of native medial gastrocnemius mass, respectively. Histology of the repaired nerve revealed large axons in the autograft, larger but fewer axons in the ENC repair, and many smaller axons in the EFC repair. Muscle histology revealed similar muscle fiber cross-sectional areas among autograft, ENC and EFC repairs. In conclusion, both ENCs and EFCs promoted nerve regeneration in a 10-mm tibial nerve gap repair, suggesting that the E15 rat nerve cells may not be necessary for nerve regeneration, and EFC alone can suffice for peripheral nerve injury repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.