4.7 Review

Morphological Methods to Evaluate Peripheral Nerve Fiber Regeneration: A Comprehensive Review

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24031818

Keywords

peripheral nerve regeneration; morphological outcome measurement; measurement reliability and reproducibility

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Regeneration of damaged peripheral nerves is a major challenge in neurosurgery and regenerative medicine. Various strategies, such as tissue-engineered nerve conduits and new interventions, are being developed to improve nerve functionality and patients' life quality. However, the diversity of evaluation methods and technologies across different labs makes it difficult to compare results. This review aims to discuss the usefulness and limitations of main morphological approaches used to evaluate nerve fiber regeneration.
Regeneration of damaged peripheral nerves remains one of the main challenges of neurosurgery and regenerative medicine, a nerve functionality is rarely restored, especially after severe injuries. Researchers are constantly looking for innovative strategies for tackling this problem, with the development of advanced tissue-engineered nerve conduits and new pharmacological and physical interventions, with the aim of improving patients' life quality. Different evaluation methods can be used to study the effectiveness of a new treatment, including functional tests, morphological assessment of regenerated nerve fibers and biomolecular analyses of key factors necessary for good regeneration. The number and diversity of protocols and methods, as well as the availability of innovative technologies which are used to assess nerve regeneration after experimental interventions, often makes it difficult to compare results obtained in different labs. The purpose of the current review is to describe the main morphological approaches used to evaluate the degree of nerve fiber regeneration in terms of their usefulness and limitations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available