ReviewNeural regeneration research2023
Animal models of vascularized nerve grafts: a systematic review.
Review in Neural regeneration research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Fascicular Turnover Flap and Autograft in a Rat Facial Nerve Model.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- First-in-human application of robotic vascularized intercostal nerve grafts for thoracic sympathetic trunk reconstruction: a technical innovation.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Optimizing Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: Surgical Techniques, Biomolecular and Regenerative Strategies-A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- The Role of Vascularized Nerve Grafting in Upper Extremity Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2024Article
- Vascularized versus Free Nerve Grafts: An Experimental Study on Rats.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- End-to-Side vs. Free Graft Nerve Reconstruction-Experimental Study on Rats.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this review is to present and compare the various animal models of vascularized nerve grafts described in the literature as well as to summarize preclinical evidence for superior functional results compared to non-vascularized free nerve grafts. We also will present the state of the art on prefabricated vascularized nerve grafts. A systematic literature review on vascularized nerve graft models was conducted via the retrieval with the PubMed database on March 30, 2019. Data on the animal, nerve, and vascularization model, the recipient bed, the evaluation time points and methods, and the results of the study results were extracted and analyzed from selected articles. The rat sciatic nerve was the most popular model for vascularized nerve grafts, followed by the rabbit; however, rabbit models allow for longer nerve grafts, which are suitable for translational evaluation, and produced more cautious results on the superiority of vascularized nerve grafts. Compared to free nerve grafts, vascularized nerve grafts have better early but similar long-term results, especially in an avascular bed. There are few studies on avascular receiving beds and prefabricated nerve grafts. The clinical translation potential of available animal models is limited, and current experimental knowledge cannot fully support that the differences between vascularized nerve grafts and free nerve grafts yield a clinical advantage that justifies the complexity of the procedure.
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.