Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35573254›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022

Implantable Biomaterials for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration-Technology Trends and Translational Tribulations.

Angela Sanchez Rezza, Yalcin Kulahci, Vijay S Gorantla, Fatih Zor, Norman M Drzeniek

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Angela Sanchez RezzaCharité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Medical Immunology, Berlin, Germany.
Yalcin KulahciWake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.
Vijay S GorantlaWake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.
Fatih ZorWake Forest School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.
Norman M DrzeniekCharité- Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Medical Immunology, Berlin, Germany.
Forest Institute · USFreie Universität Berlin · DEWake Forest University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of autografted nerve in surgical repair of peripheral nerve injuries (PNI) is severely limited due to donor site morbidity and restricted tissue availability. As an alternative, synthetic nerve guidance channels (NGCs) are available on the market for surgical nerve repair, but they fail to promote nerve regeneration across larger critical gap nerve injuries. Therefore, such injuries remain unaddressed, result in poor healing outcomes and are a limiting factor in limb reconstruction and transplantation. On the other hand, a myriad of advanced biomaterial strategies to address critical nerve injuries are proposed in preclinical literature but only few of those have found their way into clinical practice. The design of synthetic nerve grafts should follow rational criteria and make use of a combination of bioinstructive cues to actively promote nerve regeneration. To identify the most promising NGC designs for translation into applicable products, thorough mode of action studies, standardized readouts and validation in large animals are needed. We identify design criteria for NGC fabrication according to the current state of research, give a broad overview of bioactive and functionalized biomaterials and highlight emerging composite implant strategies using therapeutic cells, soluble factors, structural features and intrinsically conductive substrates. Finally, we discuss translational progress in bioartificial conduits for nerve repair from the surgeon's perspective and give an outlook toward future challenges in the field.

Indexed as

bioactive materialbiofabricationbiomaterialgrowth factorsmaterial structurenerve guidance conduitperipheral nerve injuries (PNI)peripheral nerve regeneration

Identifiers

PMID35573254
PMCPMC9092979
OpenAlexW4285745100

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.