ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2025
Chitosan-Based Materials for Peripheral Nerve Repair-New Pre-Clinical Data on Degradation Behavior at the Nerve Repair Site and Critical Opinion on Their Translational Impact.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Special Issue "Plasticity of the Nervous System After Injury: 2nd Edition".International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Stem cell-derived secretome and dental pulp stem cells enhance sciatic nerve regeneration in a rat sciatic neurotmesis model using chitosan nerve conduits.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Stem Cells to Organoids: Pioneering the Future of Regenerative Therapies.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Review
- Biomaterial and Hydrogel Strategies for Regenerative Microenvironment Reconstruction in Peripheral Nerve Conduits.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Biphasic Electrical Stimulation of Schwann Cells on Conducting Polymer-Coated Carbon Microfibers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Before clinical approval of chitosan nerve conduits (CNCs) less than 10 years ago, substantial material degradation was not reported from pre-clinical research. The current study investigated the biodegradation of two different CNC variants in the median nerve model. In adult rats, 10 mm long CNCs were secured covering end-to-end repair sites. After 2, 6, 12, and 18 months, the implantation sites were inspected, and samples harvested. Histology was performed in order to analyze local immune response or foreign body tissue reaction around the devices or within nerve samples. Further, the number of myelinated nerve fibers and the condition of the chitosan material was evaluated. Data confirmed that different CNC variants did not induce tissue reaction or negatively impact the condition of the regenerated nerve. At late time points, some specific variants were demonstrated to have resulted in encapsulated material debris in the vicinity of the original implantation side. The reported degradation behavior resembles recent clinical reports and indicates that implantation sites for CNCs need to be chosen carefully. Nerve regeneration itself is undisturbed, but narrow implantation sites should be avoided for eliminating the risk of foreign body sensation with immunologically inert material degradation.
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.