ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Host Response Impairs Tissue Integration of a Fibrin Hydrogel Scaffold Containing Poly(ε-caprolactone) Nanofibers for Peripheral Nerve Repair.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The development of bioengineered conduits for the repair of large peripheral nerve defects remains challenging. Here, we introduce a biomimetic fibrin hydrogel scaffold containing stacked arrays of aligned poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) nanofibers that mimics the naturally forming fibrin cable seen in transection injuries. We further evaluated the additional encapsulation of Schwann cells (SCs) into the fibrin hydrogel. Nerve regeneration was examined in a 15 mm rat sciatic nerve resection model over a period of 12 weeks, comparing our scaffolds against the autograft, a collagen hollow tube, and a lesion-only control group. Functional and morphometric analyses revealed that the autograft supported the strongest regeneration, followed by the SC-seeded fibrin-nanofiber scaffold and the hollow tube. Unexpectedly, a macrophage-rich core devoid of SCs and regenerated axons formed within both fibrin-nanofiber scaffolds around persisting PCL nanofibers. This core impaired the regenerative potential of the non-SC-seeded fibrin-nanofiber scaffold to the extent that functional regeneration was comparable to that of the lesion-only control group. While the scaffolds were designed to closely mimic and support the natural regenerative environment following nerve transection, our results reveal that these theoretical considerations do not necessarily translate into practice.
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.