Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40271482›Full record

ArticleJPRAS open2025

Timing and Predictors of Upper Extremity Peripheral Nerve Reconstruction.

Kelsey M Gray, Andrzej J Burkat, Lucas A Arney, Nicholas J Peterman, Sahith R Mandala, Anthony E Capito

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JPRAS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06977607 (Comparative Study Between Platelet- Rich Fibrin Versus Nano-Fat in Improving Facial Nerve Regeneration After Traumatic Injury), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06977607 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Comparative Study Between Platelet- Rich Fibrin Versus Nano-Fat in Improving Facial Nerve Regeneration After Traumatic Injury

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2024 to 2026Enrolled21ConditionsFacial Nerve Injuries, Facial TraumaArmsPlatelets Rich Fibrin, Nano-fat stem cells (NFSCs), Repair only
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Kelsey M GrayVirgina Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Roanoke, Virginia.
Andrzej J BurkatVirgina Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Roanoke, Virginia.
Lucas A ArneyVirginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia.
Nicholas J PetermanVirginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics, Roanoke, Virginia.
Sahith R MandalaVirgina Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Roanoke, Virginia.
Anthony E CapitoVirgina Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Roanoke, Virginia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Primary neurorrhaphy is the preferred reconstruction modality over nerve grafting, especially for motor nerves. The main limitation to primary repair is often dictated by tension secondary to increased nerve defect length. A retrospective review was conducted on sharp transections of mixed motor and purely sensory nerves in the upper extremity to assess factors influencing defect length. Two groups of either primary repair or nerve graft/conduit were created for comparison. Overall, 71 injured mixed motor nerves and 224 injured sensory nerves were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in patient demographics between the groups. The primary repair group had a significantly shorter time interval between injury and surgical fixation when compared to the conduit/graft group. Conduit or graft technique was associated with a significantly larger tissue gap after preparation of the nerve ends. Our data suggest that the optimal time for primary repair is within 3 days after injury for mixed nerves and within 7 days for purely sensory nerves. A total of 167 nerve reconstructions were included in a random forest plot, which demonstrated nerve defect size to be influenced by days from injury, type of nerve injured, age, and hypertension. A publicly available 4-feature calculator, nerve evaluation and retraction variability estimator-NERVE, was developed from the forest plot to predict a patient's nerve deficit of ± 3.78 mm on an average, R

Indexed as

Nerve calculatorNerve defectNerve graftingNerve primary repairNerve repair timingPeripheral nerve repair

Identifiers

PMID40271482
PMCPMC12018019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.