ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Comparative evaluation of nerve repair and local tissue response following ReFeel
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Peripheral nerve injuries (PNIs) pose a persistent clinical challenge, with current repair strategies limited by material biocompatibility, degradation, and regenerative efficacy. This study evaluates the in vivo performance of ReFeel®, a novel bioresorbable alginate-polyglycolic acid (PGA) nerve cuff, in two rat sciatic nerve models, compared to commercial collagen-based repair devices NeuroMatrix® (conduit) and NeuroMend® (wrap). Methods: Two studies were conducted in Sprague-Dawley rats using either a 10 mm sciatic nerve gap model (ReFeel® vs. NeuroMatrix®) or a no-gap intact sciatic nerve perineural wrap model (nerve exposed but not transected), comparing ReFeel® with NeuroMend®. Functional, histological, immunohistochemical, and morphometric assessments were performed at 1 week, 8 weeks, and 26 weeks (gap model) and 1 week, 8 weeks, and 13 weeks (wrap model). Tissues were analyzed using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), Masson's trichrome, Safranin-O, NF200, S-100, and toluidine blue staining. Degradation, host response, axon regeneration, Schwann cell activity, and fibrosis were quantified. Results: ReFeel® demonstrated superior Schwann cell alignment and axonal regeneration, particularly at 26 weeks, with near-complete scaffold resorption and minimal fibrotic encapsulation. Quantitative scores showed higher axon densities and comparable G-ratios versus NeuroMatrix®. In the wrap model, ReFeel® matched NeuroMend® in axon count and morphology at 13 weeks, with greater consistency in tissue remodeling. ReFeel® showed earlier material clearance, reduced chronic inflammation, and increased fatty infiltration, suggesting improved biocompatibility and scaffold integration. Discussion: ReFeel® supports robust peripheral nerve regeneration and degrades in synchrony with tissue remodeling. Compared to collagen-based devices, it enhances central and distal regeneration, promotes restoration of normal nerve homeostasis, and reduces fibrosis and chronic host response. Its ease of application further supports its potential as an effective scaffold for peripheral nerve repair. These findings validate the regenerative potential of alginate-PGA biomaterials and support the clinical translation of ReFeel® as a next-generation nerve repair solution, particularly for bridging nerve gaps or preventing perineural adhesions.
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.