Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34855774›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Nerve recovery from treatment with a vascularized nerve graft compared to an autologous non-vascularized nerve graft in animal models: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Berend O Broeren, Liron S Duraku, Caroline A Hundepool, Erik T Walbeehm, J Michiel Zuidam, Carlijn R Hooijmans, Tim De Jong

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Berend O BroerenDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0198-8941
Liron S DurakuDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Caroline A HundepoolDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erik T WalbeehmDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J Michiel ZuidamDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Carlijn R HooijmansDepartment for Health Evidence Unit SYRCLE, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tim De JongDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLErasmus MC · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment of nerve injuries proves to be a worldwide clinical challenge. Vascularized nerve grafts are suggested to be a promising alternative for bridging a nerve gap to the current gold standard, an autologous non-vascularized nerve graft. However, there is no adequate clinical evidence for the beneficial effect of vascularized nerve grafts and they are still disputed in clinical practice.

objectiveTo systematically review whether vascularized nerve grafts give a superior nerve recovery compared to non-vascularized nerve autografts regarding histological and electrophysiological outcomes in animal models. MATERIAL AND

methodsPubMed and Embase were systematically searched. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) the study was an original full paper which presented unique data; 2) a clear comparison between a vascularized and a non-vascularized autologous nerve transfer was made; 3) the population study were animals of all genders and ages. A standardized mean difference and 95% confidence intervals for each comparison was calculated to estimate the overall effect. Subgroup analyses were conducted on graft length, species and time frames.

resultsFourteen articles were included in this review and all were included in the meta-analyses. A vascularized nerve graft resulted in a significantly larger diameter, higher nerve conduction velocity and axonal count compared to an autologous non-vascularized nerve graft. However, during sensitivity analysis the effect on axonal count disappeared. No significant difference was observed in muscle weight.

conclusionTreating a nerve gap with a vascularized graft results in superior nerve recovery compared to non-vascularized nerve autografts in terms of axon count, diameter and nerve conduction velocity. No difference in muscle weight was seen. However, this conclusion needs to be taken with some caution due to the inherent limitations of this meta-analysis. We recommend future studies to be performed under conditions more closely resembling human circumstances and to use long nerve defects.

Indexed as

Nerve TissueAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalFemaleHumansMaleNerve RegenerationNerve TransferRabbitsRatsRecovery of FunctionTransplantation, AutologousTrauma, Nervous System

Identifiers

PMID34855774
PMCPMC8638852
OpenAlexW3215772244

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.