Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37631456›Full record

ArticlePolymers2023

Peripheral Nerve Regeneration at 1 Year: Biodegradable Polybutylene Succinate Artificial Scaffold vs. Conventional Epineurial Sutures.

Luca Cicero, Roberto Puleio, Giovanni Cassata, Roberta Cirincione, Lawrence Camarda, Dario Caracappa, Lorenzo D'Itri, Mariano Licciardi, Giulio Edoardo Vigni

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Polymers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luca CiceroCentro Mediterraneo Ricerca e Training (Ce.Me.Ri.T), Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sicilia "A. Mirri", 90129 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4386-7723
Roberto PuleioLaboratorio Istopatologia e Immunoistochimica, Dipartimento Ricerca Biotecnologica e Diagnostica Specialistica, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sicilia "A. Mirri", 90129 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3461-3353
Giovanni CassataCentro Mediterraneo Ricerca e Training (Ce.Me.Ri.T), Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sicilia "A. Mirri", 90129 Palermo, Italy.
Roberta CirincioneCentro Mediterraneo Ricerca e Training (Ce.Me.Ri.T), Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sicilia "A. Mirri", 90129 Palermo, Italy.
Lawrence CamardaDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Palermo, 90133 Palermo, Italy.
Dario CaracappaDipartimento di Discipline Chirurgiche, Oncologiche e Stomatologiche (DICHIRONS), Università degli Studi di Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0009-0007-7296-1264
Lorenzo D'ItriDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Palermo, 90133 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0298-929X
Mariano LicciardiDipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche Chimiche e Farmaceutiche (STEBICEF), Università degli Studi di Palermo, 90132 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4539-9337
Giulio Edoardo VigniDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Palermo, 90133 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3144-1354
University of Palermo · ITIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale Della Sicilia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The utilization of a planar poly(1,4-butylene succinate) (PBS) scaffold has been demonstrated as an effective approach for preserving nerve continuity and facilitating nerve regeneration. In this study, we assessed the characteristics of a microfibrous tubular scaffold specifically designed and fabricated through electrospinning, utilizing PBS as a biocompatible and biodegradable material. These scaffolds were evaluated as nerve guide conduits in a rat model of sciatic nerve neurotmesis, demonstrating both their biodegradability and efficacy in enhancing the reconstruction process over a long-term period (1-year follow-up). Histological assay and electrophysiological evaluation were performed to compare the long-term outcomes following sutureless repair with the microfibrillar wrap to outcomes obtained using traditional suture repair.

Indexed as

electrospinningnerve regenerationpoly(1,4-butylene succinate)

Identifiers

PMID37631456
PMCPMC10458963
OpenAlexW4385811122

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.