ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
MRI and Ultrasound Visualization of a Nerve Repair Implant Containing Nitinol.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Nerve Tape is a novel nerve repair device containing nitinol microhooks that provide sutureless attachment for nerve coaptation. This study evaluated visualization of Nerve Tape on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound, with the objective of exploring its potential as an imaging marker for localizing nerve repair sites. Methods: Phantom imaging experiments were first conducted to assess the visibility of Nerve Tape on MRI and ultrasound. A cadaveric limb investigation was then performed to further characterize the magnetic susceptibility patterns of Nerve Tape and to confirm its localization at the repair site. Results: Phantom imaging experiments demonstrated clear visualization of Nerve Tape on both MRI and ultrasound, with Nerve Tape microhooks appearing as signal voids on MRI and hyperechoic foci on ultrasound. Subsequent cadaveric limb investigation further characterized Nerve Tape's magnetic susceptibility patterns and confirmed localization of the device at the repair site. The physical dimensions of Nerve Tape and locations observed on both MRI and ultrasound matched design and measurements made during surgery. Measurement discrepancies could be attributed to magnetic susceptibility artifacts in MRI, and to comet tail and shadowing effects in ultrasound. Conclusions: Repairs performed with Nerve Tape can be reliably localized for imaging, potentially facilitating assessment of repair site integrity and further advancement toward image-based monitoring of nerve regeneration. Further research, including in vivo human studies, is warranted to confirm these preliminary findings.
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.