4.5 Article

Materials for peripheral nerve repair constructs: Natural proteins or synthetic polymers?

期刊

NEUROCHEMISTRY INTERNATIONAL
卷 143, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuint.2020.104953

关键词

-

资金

  1. Advanced Therapeutics and Nanomedicines CDT [EP/L01646X]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efforts to repair severe peripheral nerve injuries have led to promising approaches using biomaterial constructs. Research is focused on developing sophisticated constructs with regenerative agents to facilitate nerve regeneration. The use of natural proteins and synthetic polymers in nerve repair constructs, as well as cell therapy, show potential for successful outcomes in vivo.
The efficacious repair of severe peripheral nerve injuries is currently an unmet clinical need, and biomaterial constructs offer a promising approach to help promote nerve regeneration. Current research focuses on the development of more sophisticated constructs with complex architecture and the addition of regenerative agents to encourage timely reinnervation and promote functional recovery. This review surveyed the present landscape of nerve repair construct literature with a focus on six selected materials that are frequently encountered in this application: the natural proteins collagen, chitosan, and silk, and the synthetic polymers poly-epsilon-caprolactone (PCL), poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) and poly-glycolic acid (PGA). This review also investigated the use of cell therapy in nerve repair constructs, and in all instances concentrated on publications reporting constructs developed and tested in vivo in the last five years (2015-2020). Across the selected literature, the popularity of natural proteins and synthetic polymers appears to be broadly equivalent, with a similar number of studies reporting successful outcomes in vivo. Both material types are also utilised as vehicles for cell therapy, which has much potential to improve the results of nerve bridging for treating longer gaps.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据