4.7 Review

Does Electrical Stimulation through Nerve Conduits Improve Peripheral Nerve Regeneration?-A Systematic Review

Journal

JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13030414

Keywords

nerve regeneration; electrical stimulation; nerve conduit; peripheral nerve injury; sciatic nerve; plastic surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The combined application of nerve guidance conduits and electrical stimulation can improve peripheral nerve regeneration in rat models, but there is high variation in treatment protocols and further evaluation under standardized conditions is needed.
Background: Peripheral nerve injuries affect over 2% of trauma patients and can lead to severe functional impairment and permanent disability. Autologous nerve transplantation is still the gold standard in the reconstruction of nerve defects. For small defects, conduits can be considered for bridging. Lately, the combined use of conduits and electrical stimulation has gained attention in the treatment of peripheral nerve injury. This review aimed to present the currently available data on this topic. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies on electrical stimulation through nerve conduits for nerve defects in in vivo studies. Results: Fifteen studies fit the inclusion criteria. All of them reported on the application of nerve conduits combined with stimulation for sciatic nerve gaps in rats. Functional, electrophysiological and histological evaluations showed improved nerve regeneration after electrical stimulation. High variation was observed in the treatment protocols. Conclusion: Electrically stimulated conduits could improve peripheral nerve regeneration in rat models. The combined application of nerve guidance conduits and electrical stimulation shows promising results and should be further evaluated under standardized conditions.

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