Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42306414›Full record

ReviewBrain & spine2026

Comparative analysis of Antigliotic Guiding Regenerative Gel (AGRG - LDP-916) for peripheral nerve reconstruction: Evidence from prospective randomized controlled studies.

S Rochkind, A Goldlust, M Almog

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain & spine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

S RochkindTel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
A GoldlustMaxonis Ltd., Israel.
M AlmogMaxonis Ltd., Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Peripheral nerve injuries (PNIs) with segmental defects remain a challenge. Autologous nerve grafts (ANG) are the gold standard but are limited by donor-site morbidity and variable outcomes in long-gap repairs. Processed allografts and synthetic conduits provide alternatives but lack biological cues for optimal regeneration. Research question: This article presents a structured, author-driven narrative synthesis of published prospective randomized controlled preclinical studies evaluating the Antigliotic Guiding Regenerative Gel (AGRG), also known as LDP-916, a bioactive hydrogel designed to promote axonal growth and remyelination. It examines whether AGRG can achieve outcomes comparable to or exceeding ANG while avoiding donor-site morbidity. Methods: Data were synthesized from two published prospective randomized controlled preclinical studies: (1) acute rat sciatic nerve transection with a 15-mm critical-size defect repaired using AGRG-filled collagen conduits versus ANG and empty tubes; and (2) chronic rabbit sciatic nerve injury with a 25-mm critical-size defect repaired using AGRG-filled NeuraGen® conduits versus ANG and empty NeuraGen®. Additional observations from a rat replication study are summarized qualitatively to provide context on sensory, neuromuscular, and muscle preservation outcomes. Results: Across rat and rabbit models, AGRG supported regeneration comparable to ANG in structural outcomes. It demonstrated favorable electrophysiological and myelin-related outcomes compared with empty conduits, with histological analyses confirming organized remyelination and axonal maturation. Conclusion: AGRG shows reproducible preclinical efficacy across critical-size models and represents a clinically oriented, donor-site-sparing candidate for bridging major peripheral nerve defects. Conclusions are based on published evidence and presented as a structured narrative synthesis rather than definitive practice-changing claims.

Indexed as

Antigliotic guiding regenerative gel (AGRG/ LDP-916)Autologous nerve graftCritical-size nerve defectNerve conduitNerve regenerationPeripheral nerve injury

Identifiers

PMID42306414
PMCPMC13266207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.