ArticleBrain & spine2026
Advances in peripheral nerve reconstruction: Current clinical conduits, comparative outcomes, limitations, and future technological perspectives.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Melatonin in Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: Molecular Mechanisms, Schwann Cell Dynamics, and Translational Therapeutic Potential.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Review
- Antigliotic guiding regenerative gel: a bioactive hydrogel platform for peripheral nerve and spinal cord repair.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.