ArticleJournal of neuroscience research2025
A Nonhuman Primate Model to Evaluate Treatments for Long-Gap Ulnar Nerve Injury.
Article in Journal of neuroscience research, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Among all upper extremity nerves, the ulnar nerve is both the most commonly injured and notoriously difficult to regenerate. Despite this, ulnar nerve injuries remain understudied. Nonhuman primates (NHPs) offer an ideal model for the human upper extremity, but existing NHP nerve trauma literature is biased towards median and radial injury models. To address this, a nonhuman primate ulnar nerve injury model was developed and regeneration assessed following sural nerve autografting using electrophysiological and histological techniques. Unilateral 4 cm ulnar nerve injuries were created at the mid-forearm level, sural nerve autografts were sutured into resulting defects (n = 3), and animals were survived for 6 months. At the terminal time point, intraoperative electrophysiological testing, tissue harvest, and tissue processing were performed. Naïve nerves (n = 5) served as controls. Animals appeared clinically normal throughout the study period, other than an expected decrease in fine hand muscle function. After 6 months, histological and electrophysiological evidence suggested that axons crossed the graft and reached distal muscle targets. However, regenerating nerves exhibited a reduced motor nerve conduction velocity, reduced compound action muscle potential (CMAP) amplitude and area under the curve, increased latency, and increased duration versus naïve controls as expected. Histological analysis revealed reduced axon diameters, thinner myelin sheaths, and smaller muscle fiber cross-sectional areas as compared to controls. At 6 months post-injury, 4 cm ulnar defects bridged with sural autografts show signs of ongoing regeneration and nascent reinnervation. Specific electrophysiological and histological benchmarks for ulnar nerve recovery following clinically relevant autografting are presented.
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.