ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2021
Muscle in vein conduits: our experience.
Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Muscle-in-Vein Conduits for the Treatment of Symptomatic Neuroma of Sensory Digital Nerves.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Early vascularization as a key feature of muscle-in-vein grafts for peripheral nerve repair.Journal of tissue engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Muscle in vein (MIV ) conduits have gradually been employed in the last 20 years as a valuable technique in bridging peripheral nerve gaps after nerve lesions who cannot undergo a direct tension-free coaptation. The advantages of this procedure comparing to the actual benchmark (autograft) is the sparing of the donor site, and the huge availability of both components (i.e. muscle and veins). Here we present a case serie of four MIV performed at our hospital from 2018 to 2019. The results we obtained in our experi-ence confirmed its effectiveness both in nerve regeneration (as sensibility recovery) and in neuropathic pain eradication. Our positive outcomes encourage its use in selected cases of residual nerve gaps up to 30 mm.
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.