ReviewOrthopedic research and reviews2025
Systematic Review of Nerve Adhesion Barriers for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration and Functional Recovery.
Review in Orthopedic research and reviews, 2025. 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.
- Programmable Hydrogels for Surgical Interface Control: Function-Based Design, DNA-Based Molecular Modules, and Translational Evaluation.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A review of new developments in peripheral nerve regeneration.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) is characterized by poor functional outcomes, insufficient nerve regeneration, and deterioration of sensory and motor function. Factors such as nerve tissue loss and extended denervation of proximal nerves impede regeneration. Therapeutic interventions include microsurgical techniques and nerve-guide conduits. However, nerve adhesion, which restricts nerve mobility, also contributes to inadequate healing. Surgical modifications and chemical agents are used to mitigate adhesion. Methods: We searched across four databases, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and Medline, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. The study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the systematic review center for laboratory animal experimentation (SYRCLE)'s and Cochrane RoB-2 tools. Results: Out of 549 studies, 5 studies met our inclusion criteria, consisting of four animal studies and one randomized controlled trial involving human participants. Different nerve adhesion materials were evaluated in the studies included. Histological evaluation of nerve regeneration generally shows more advanced regenerative hallmarks in the intervention group. Additionally, in terms of motor and sensory function, improvements were seen in the majority of parameters observed in all studies included. Conclusion: This systematic review indicates that nerve adhesion barriers show promising outcomes in promoting nerve regeneration and functional recovery by reducing adhesion and enhancing structural alignment in peripheral nerve injuries. Applicability of such barriers in humans may still be debatable as findings are limited by the small number of included studies and predominance of animal data. Further long-term trials may warrant its' clinical efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.