ReviewBiomacromolecules2025
Review of Gaps in the Clinical Indications and Use of Neural Conduits and Artificial Grafts for Nerve Repair and Reconstruction.
Review in Biomacromolecules, 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.
- A degradable PEGDA-dopamine hydrogel with ROS scavenging capacity supports flexible design for nerve repair.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- Composite Nanoarchitectonics with Turmeric-Functionalized Layered Double Hydroxide/Poly(3-hydroxyoctanoate) as Bioactive Coatings for Bone and Nerve Regeneration.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2026Article
- Peptide concentration gradients and aligned microfiber topography synergize to speed and direct Schwann cell migration.Acta biomaterialia · 2026Article
- Comparative Outcomes of Direct Versus Connector-Assisted Peripheral Nerve Repair.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- 3D printed nerve guidance conduit for biologics-free nerve regeneration and vascular integration.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Peripheral nerve injuries remain a significant clinical challenge, with limited tools available to physicians and patients. Although autografts are the gold standard for nerve reconstruction, they are limited by donor-site morbidity and availability. Commercially available nerve guidance conduits offer alternatives, yet their clinical application remains largely restricted to short nerve gaps with limited success beyond 1 cm. This review provides a summary of the clinical studies on nerve injury repair using commercial nerve guidance conduits and discusses the shortcomings of such devices, including suboptimal mechanical properties, lack of internal guidance structures and bioactivity, and insufficient clinical data. To address these challenges, emerging innovations, such as biofunctionalized materials, conductive scaffolds, and topographically engineered architectures, are readily being explored to improve regenerative outcomes following neural injury. Overall, this work highlights the gaps in commercial devices utilized clinically and brings attention to the evolving landscape of biomaterials research that can transform clinical nerve repair.
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.