Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33805321›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2021

Reconstruction of Critical Nerve Defects Using Allogenic Nerve Tissue: A Review of Current Approaches.

Tim Kornfeld, Anton Borger, Christine Radtke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Cost-effectiveness analysis of AvanceJournal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. End-to-Side vs. Free Graft Nerve Reconstruction-Experimental Study on Rats.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Tim KornfeldDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-7133-7733
Anton BorgerDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Christine RadtkeDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.

Funding

Volkswagen Foundation 88737
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regardless of the nerve defect length, nerve injury is a debilitating condition for the affected patient that results in loss of sensory and motor function. These functional impairments can have a profound impact on the patient's quality of life. Surgical approaches for the treatment of short segment nerve defects are well-established. Autologous nerve transplantation, considered the gold standard, and the use of artificial nerve grafts are safe and successful procedures for short segment nerve defect reconstruction. Long segment nerve defects which extend 3.0 cm or more are more problematic for repair. Methods for reconstruction of long defects are limited. Artificial nerve grafts often fail to regenerate and autologous nerve grafts are limited in length and number. Cadaveric processed/unprocessed nerve allografts are a promising alternative in nerve surgery. This review gives a systematic overview on pre-clinical and clinical approaches in nerve allograft transplantation.

Indexed as

Transplantation, HomologousHumansNerve TissuePeripheral Nerve Injuriesallograftartificial nerve graftsFDA

Identifiers

PMID33805321
PMCPMC8036990

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.