Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31997801›Full record

ReviewNeural regeneration research2020

Modification of tubular chitosan-based peripheral nerve implants: applications for simple or more complex approaches.

Nina Dietzmeyer, Maria Förthmann, Claudia Grothe, Kirsten Haastert-Talini

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neural regeneration research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. All-Polymer Printed Low-Cost Regenerative Nerve Cuff Electrodes.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021
    Article
  15. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nina DietzmeyerInstitute of Neuroanatomy and Cell Biology, Hannover Medical School, Center for Systems Neuroscience (ZSN) Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Maria FörthmannInstitute of Neuroanatomy and Cell Biology, Hannover Medical School, Center for Systems Neuroscience (ZSN) Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Claudia GrotheInstitute of Neuroanatomy and Cell Biology, Hannover Medical School, Center for Systems Neuroscience (ZSN) Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Kirsten Haastert-TaliniInstitute of Neuroanatomy and Cell Biology, Hannover Medical School, Center for Systems Neuroscience (ZSN) Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgical treatment of peripheral nerve injuries is still a major challenge in human clinic. Up to now, none of the well-developed microsurgical treatment options is able to guarantee a complete restoration of nerve function. This restriction is also effective for novel clinically approved artificial nerve guides. In this review, we compare surgical repair techniques primarily for digital nerve injuries reported with relatively high prevalence to be valuable attempts in clinical digital nerve repair and point out their advantages and shortcomings. We furthermore discuss the use of artificial nerve grafts with a focus on chitosan-based nerve guides, for which our own studies contributed to their approval for clinical use. In the second part of this review, very recent future perspectives for the enhancement of tubular (commonly hollow) nerve guides are discussed in terms of their clinical translatability and ability to form three-dimensional constructs that biomimick the natural nerve structure. This includes materials that have already shown their beneficial potential in in vivo studies like fibrous intraluminal guidance structures, hydrogels, growth factors, and approaches of cell transplantation. Additionally, we highlight upcoming future perspectives comprising co-application of stem cell secretome. From our overview, we conclude that already simple attempts are highly effective to increase the regeneration supporting properties of nerve guides in experimental studies. But for bringing nerve repair with bioartificial nerve grafts to the next level, e.g. repair of defects > 3 cm in human patients, more complex intraluminal guidance structures such as innovatively manufactured hydrogels and likely supplementation of stem cells or their secretome for therapeutic purposes may represent promising future perspectives.

Indexed as

bioartificial nerve graftbiological nerve graftcell transplantationcellular productsluminal structuresperipheral nerve repair

Identifiers

PMID31997801
PMCPMC7059590
OpenAlexW3003771677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.