Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34180135›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials2022

Polybutylene succinate artificial scaffold for peripheral nerve regeneration.

Luca Cicero, Mariano Licciardi, Roberta Cirincione, Roberto Puleio, Gaetano Giammona, Giuseppe Giglia, Pierangelo Sardo, Giulio Edoardo Vigni, Alessio Cioffi, Antonino Sanfilippo and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Polybutylene succinate artificial scaffold for peripheral nerve regeneration.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2022
    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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luca CiceroCentro Mediterraneo Ricerca e Training (Ce.Me.Ri.T), Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sicilia "A. Mirri", Palermo, Italy.
Mariano LicciardiDipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche Chimiche e Farmaceutiche (STEBICEF), Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Roberta CirincioneCentro Mediterraneo Ricerca e Training (Ce.Me.Ri.T), Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sicilia "A. Mirri", Palermo, Italy.
Roberto PuleioCentro Mediterraneo Ricerca e Training (Ce.Me.Ri.T), Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sicilia "A. Mirri", Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3461-3353
Gaetano GiammonaDipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche Chimiche e Farmaceutiche (STEBICEF), Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Giuseppe GigliaDipartimento di Biomedicina, Neuroscienze e Diagnostica Avanzata (BiND) Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Pierangelo SardoDipartimento di Biomedicina, Neuroscienze e Diagnostica Avanzata (BiND) Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Giulio Edoardo VigniDipartimento di Discipline Chirurgiche, Oncologiche e Stomatologiche, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Alessio CioffiDipartimento di Discipline Chirurgiche, Oncologiche e Stomatologiche, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Antonino SanfilippoDipartimento di Discipline Chirurgiche, Oncologiche e Stomatologiche, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Giovanni CassataCentro Mediterraneo Ricerca e Training (Ce.Me.Ri.T), Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sicilia "A. Mirri", Palermo, Italy.
University of Palermo · ITIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale Della Sicilia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regeneration and recovery of nerve tissues are a great challenge for medicine, and positively affect the quality of life of patients. The development of tissue engineering offers a new approach to the problem with the creation of multifunctional artificial scaffolds that act on various levels in the damaged tissue, providing physical and biochemical support for the growth of nerve cells. In this study, the effects of the use of a tubular scaffold made of polybutylene succinate (PBS), surgically positioned at the level of a sciatic nerve injured in rat, between the proximal stump and the distal one, was investigated. Scaffolds characterization was carried out by scanning electron microscopy and X-ray microcomputed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, in vivo. The demonstration of the nerve regeneration was based on the evaluation of electroneurography, measuring the weight of gastrocnemius and tibialis anterior muscles, histological examination of regenerated nerves and observing the recovery of the locomotor activity of animals. The PBS tubular scaffold minimized iatrogenic trauma on the nerve, acting as a directional guide for the regenerating fibers by conveying them toward the distal stump. In this context, neurotrophic and neurotropic factors may accumulate and perform their functions, while invasion by macrophages and scar tissue is hampered.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeTissue ScaffoldsAnimalsButylene GlycolsHumansNerve RegenerationPolymersRatsRats, Sprague-DawleySciatic NerveX-Ray MicrotomographybionoleButylene GlycolsPolymersartificial conduitselectrospinningnerve regenerationpoly(1,4-butylene succinate) (PBS)sciatic nerve

Identifiers

PMID34180135
PMCPMC9290626
OpenAlexW3174933454

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.