ReviewJPRAS open2026
Primary peripheral nerve repair: A systematic review of sutures, fibrin glue, and biologic-augmented approaches.
Review in JPRAS open, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Fibrin glue neurorrhaphy (FGN) has demonstrated functional improvements for traumatic peripheral nerve injuries (PNI) in preclinical studies; however, evidence regarding its clinical effectiveness in humans remains limited. Recent advances in regenerative medicine, particularly involving biologics such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP), represent an innovative therapeutic strategy that leverages its neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory effects as well as trophic support for tissue regeneration. To assess the safety and effectiveness of these approaches, we conducted a systematic review comparing FGN and microsuture neurorrhaphy (MN), used either individually or in combination with biologics, for primary peripheral nerve repair. Methods: Systematic literature searches were conducted across multiple databases from 1990 to 2025 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered with PROSPERO. The primary outcome of interest was motor and sensory functional recovery and safety. Other outcomes included neurophysiological examinations, pain or discomfort and operating time. The Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials(RoB2) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale(NOS) were used to assess the risk of bias. Results: A total of 164 patients from six studies were included. The mean patient age was 31.43 years, and 61.6% were female. Compared with MN, FGN achieved comparable motor and sensory recovery while offering shorter operative times and simpler technical execution. When combined with PRP, faster functional recovery was observed, and no major complications were reported. Conclusion: FGN may represent a sutureless alternative to MN with comparable functional outcomes in selected patients for primary peripheral nerve repair. The adjunctive use of PRP may facilitate nerve regeneration and improve functional recovery without introducing major safety concerns. However, given the heterogeneity of nerve types and the high risk of bias among included studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and require confirmation in adequately powered future studies.
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.