ArticleHand & microsurgery2016
A chronically-denervated versus a freshly-harvested autograft for nerve repair in rats.
Article in Hand & microsurgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAutologous nerve grafting remains the gold standard for repair of peripheral nerve injuries. Its use, however, is limited by donor nerve availability and donor site morbidity. This is especially problematic after failure of an initial autograft that requires a repeat nerve graft, resulting in a second surgical site with associated morbidity. Based on the molecular differences in nerve degeneration in the proximal and distal segments after transection, we hypothesized that a chronically-denervated proximal stump may be viable for autologous nerve repair.
methods20 Sprague-Dawley rats underwent right sciatic nerve excision and sural nerve transection. After 8 weeks, nerve repair was performed by harvesting the proximal segment of the sural nerve (n=10) or a fresh sural nerve (n=10) from the contralateral hind limb. Electrophysiological changes were analyzed to compare the fresh and denervated grafts.
resultsElectrophysiological testing demonstrated higher compound motor action potential in the denervated group compared to the fresh autograft group, however this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.117).
conclusionThe proximal segment of a chronically-denervated sural nerve can be as effective as a fresh sural nerve for autologous repair of peripheral nerve injuries in a rodent model.
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.