Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42389479›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2026

Advances in peripheral nerve reconstruction: Current clinical conduits, comparative outcomes, limitations, and future technological perspectives.

Shimon Rochkind

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Brain & spine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

1 author.

Shimon RochkindTel-Aviv University, Faculty of Medicine, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Peripheral nerve injuries remain a major clinical challenge, often resulting in persistent motor deficits, sensory loss, and neuropathic pain. When direct tension-free repair is not feasible, nerve reconstruction relies on autografts, processed allografts, or conduit-based strategies. Despite decades of innovation, outcomes remain inconsistent, particularly in motor nerves, long-gap defects, and complex traumatic environments. Research question: What are the relative clinical performances and limitations of currently available nerve repair strategies, and which emerging technologies may address their unmet biological shortcomings? Material and methods: This narrative review synthesizes clinical, experimental, and comparative evidence on autologous nerve grafts, processed nerve allografts, and biological or synthetic nerve conduits. Emphasis is placed on reported functional recovery, gap-length tolerance, complication profiles, and the influence of the injury microenvironment. Results: Autologous nerve grafting remains the benchmark for reliable regeneration but is limited by donor-site morbidity and graft availability. Processed nerve allografts preserve extracellular matrix architecture and demonstrate outcomes comparable to autografts for moderate-length defects, while avoiding harvest-related complications. In contrast, hollow biological and synthetic conduits show acceptable performance primarily in short sensory gaps, with declining efficacy in motor nerves, long defects, and inflammatory or scar-prone injuries. Discussion and conclusion: Current nerve repair technologies are fundamentally constrained by their passive structural design and limited ability to modulate the inhibitory post-injury microenvironment. Future progress is likely to depend on integrative platforms that combine structural guidance with active biological modulation, including bioactive and hydrogel-based strategies, to enhance regeneration in complex peripheral nerve injuries.

Identifiers

PMID42389479
PMCPMC13320547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.