Cited by 556Nerve injury and regenerationNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

Nerve guide conduits for peripheral nerve injury repair: A review on design, materials and fabrication methods

Vijayavenkataraman, Sanjairaj·2020·Acta Biomaterialia

Abstract

Peripheral nerves can sustain injuries due to loss of structure and/or function of peripheral nerves because of accident, trauma and other causes, which leads to partial or complete loss of sensory, motor, and autonomic functions and neuropathic pain. Even with the extensive knowledge on the pathophysiology and regeneration mechanisms of peripheral nerve injuries (PNI), reliable treatment methods that ensure full functional recovery are scant. Nerve autografting is the current gold standard for treatment of PNI. Given the limitations of autografts including donor site morbidity and limited supply, alternate treatment methods are being pursued by the researchers. Neural guide conduits (NGCs) are increasingly being considered as a potential alternative to nerve autografts. The anatomy of peripheral nerves, classification of PNI, and current treatment methods are briefly yet succinctly reviewed. A detailed review on the various designs of NGCs, the different materials used for making the NGCs, and the fabrication methods adopted is presented in this work. Much progress had been made in all the aspects of making an NGC, including the design, materials and fabrication techniques. The advent of advanced technologies such as additive manufacturing and 3D bioprinting could be beneficial in easing the production of patient-specific NGCs. NGCs with supporting cells or stem cells, NGCs loaded with neurotropic factors and drugs, and 4D printed NGCs are some of the futuristic areas of interest. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Neural guide conduits (NGCs) are increasingly being considered as a potential alternative to nerve autografts in the treatment of peripheral nerve injuries. A detailed review on the various designs of NGCs, the different materials used for making the NGCs, and the fabrication methods (including Additive Manufacturing) adopted is presented in this work.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.02.003

Cites

129 of 129 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vijayavenkataraman, S.
Affiliations
New York University Abu Dhabi (AE)
Corresponding author
Vijayavenkataraman, Sanjairaj
Venue
Acta Biomaterialia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
106
Pages
54-69
ISSN
1742-7061 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3004759799
Cited by
556
References
129
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 106 · 2024: 113 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 91 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 23
FWCI
9.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Biomaterialia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nerve injury and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Keywords
peripheral nerve injury, peripheral nerve regeneration, biomaterials, fabrication techniques, additive manufacturing, 3D bioprinting, 4D printing, supporting cells, stem cells, neurotrophic factors, drug delivery
MeSH terms
Animals, Biocompatible Materials, Humans, Nerve Regeneration, Peripheral Nerves, Cell Line, Tumor, Tissue Scaffolds, Peripheral Nerve Injuries

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review