Gerth DJ, Tashiro J, Thaller SR. Clinical outcomes for Conduits and Scaffolds in peripheral nerve repair. World J Clin Cases 2015; 3(2): 141-147 [PMID: 25685760 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i2.141]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Seth R Thaller, MD, DMD, Chief and Professor, Division of Plastic, Aesthetic, and Reconstructive Surgery, DeWitt-Daughtry Family Department of Surgery, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, 1120 NW 14th Street, Suite 410, Miami, FL 33136, United States. sthaller@med.miami.edu
Research Domain of This Article
Surgery
Article-Type of This Article
Minireviews
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Cases. Feb 16, 2015; 3(2): 141-147 Published online Feb 16, 2015. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i2.141
Clinical outcomes for Conduits and Scaffolds in peripheral nerve repair
David J Gerth, Jun Tashiro, Seth R Thaller
David J Gerth, Jun Tashiro, Seth R Thaller, Division of Plastic, Aesthetic, and Reconstructive Surgery, DeWitt-Daughtry Family Department of Surgery, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136, United States
Author contributions: All authors contributed to this work.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Seth R Thaller, MD, DMD, Chief and Professor, Division of Plastic, Aesthetic, and Reconstructive Surgery, DeWitt-Daughtry Family Department of Surgery, Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, 1120 NW 14th Street, Suite 410, Miami, FL 33136, United States. sthaller@med.miami.edu
Telephone: +1-305-2434500 Fax: +1-305-2434535
Received: September 5, 2014 Peer-review started: September 5, 2014 First decision: October 14, 2014 Revised: November 7, 2014 Accepted: November 17, 2014 Article in press: November 19, 2014 Published online: February 16, 2015
Abstract
The gold standard of peripheral nerve repair is nerve autograft when tensionless repair is not possible. Use of nerve autograft has several shortcomings, however. These include limited availability of donor tissue, sacrifice of a functional nerve, and possible neuroma formation. In order to address these deficiencies, researchers have developed a variety of biomaterials available for repair of peripheral nerve gaps. We review the clinical studies published in the English literature detailing outcomes and reconstructive options. Regardless of the material used or the type of nerve repaired, outcomes are generally similar to nerve autograft in gaps less than 3 cm. New biomaterials currently under preclinical evaluation may provide improvements in outcomes.
Core tip: Nerve autograft is the gold standard for peripheral nerve reconstruction with gap. However, shortcomings of autograft have led researchers to investigate various biomaterials to improve outcomes. Clinical studies of peripheral nerve reconstruction with conduit other than autograft show similar outcomes in gaps less than 3 cm.
