CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Nerve injury and regenerationElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical ApplicationsTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

Low Loading of Collagen in Electrospun Polyester Nerve Conduits for Repairing Segmental Nerve Defect: An Experimental Study Using the Tibial Nerve in Rats with Multiple Measurements

Open access
Sananpanich, Kanit, Wiwattanapanich, Kairop, Daranarong, Donraporn, Namhongsa, Manasanan, Jringjit, Warakorn, Pleumsamran, Apisate, Chaisuksunt, Vipavadee, Chaisri, Wasana +2 more·2025·ACS Omega
DOI 10.1021/acsomega.4c10800PMC PMC12079604
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The present study provides in vivo trials of electrospun poly( l -lactide- co - ε- caprolactone), PLCL, copolymer 67:33 mol %, and electrospun PLCL blend with a low loading of collagen (0.5% w/v), PLCL-Col, as a connecting porous biodegradable nerve conduit to repair 7 mm long segmentary tibial nerve lesions in rats compared with the standard autograft technique. The electrospun PLCL scaffolds reveal a matrix of fibers with a mean diameter of 476 ± 60 nm and an average pore size of 253 ± 5 nm. Blending collagen with the PLCL results in a comparatively denser matrix of fibers with a mean diameter of 417 ± 42 nm and a pore size of 244 ± 3 nm. For in vivo testing, a total of 30 male Wistar rats were divided into 3 groups of 10 and each group was subjected to a different nerve repair procedure for evaluation of nerve regeneration after reconstruction. Evaluation of nerve regeneration was compared in terms of the tibial functional index (TFI), nerve conduction velocity (NCV), gastrocnemius muscle weight (%GMW), and a histomorphometric study. After 12 weeks of implantation, there was evidence of nerve regeneration across the gap from the histomorphologic study. All parameters of nerve regeneration were observed in every animal of the study groups. Our results clearly showed that there are reinnervation and return of function in all groups, similarly to the autograft group. PLCL-Col showed better results than PLCL and autograft, which suggested that PLCL-Col porous conduits may serve as a scaffold for peripheral nerve regeneration.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acsomega.4c10800

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Through various fabrication techniques and by incorporating drugs, cells, or bioactive factors, PLCL has been successfully applied across diverse fields, including skin wound healing, neural repair, osteochondral regeneration, vascular and urethral graft fabrication, biological meshes, drug delivery, and stem cell culture.

    “Furthermore, through various fabrication techniques and by incorporating drugs, cells, or bioactive factors, PLCL has been successfully applied across diverse fields, including skin wound healing, neural repair, osteochondral regeneration, vascular and urethral graft fabrication, biological meshes, drug delivery, and stem cell culture [1, 18, 196, 225, 229–231].”

    From Application of PLCL as a biodegradable polymer in biomedical engineering (2026) · cites this paper as [229]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Faroni A.; Mobasseri S. A.; Kingham P. J.; Reid A. J. Peripheral nerve regeneration: experimental strategies and future perspectives. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2015, 82–83, 160– 167. 10.1016/j.addr.2014.11.010. 25446133 · DOI
  2. Muheremu A.; Ao Q. Past, present, and future of nerve conduits in the treatment of peripheral nerve injury. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 237507 10.1155/2015/237507. 26491662 PMC4600484 · DOI
  3. Manoukian O. S.; Baker J.; Rudraiah S.; Arul M.; Vella A.; Domb A.; Kumbar S. G. Functional polymeric nerve guidance conduits and drug delivery strategies for peripheral nerve repair and regeneration. J. Control Release 2020, 317, 78– 95. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2019.11.021. 31756394 · DOI
  4. Meek M. F.; Coert J. H. Clinical Use of Nerve Conduits in Peripheral-Nerve Repair: Review of the Literature. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2002, 18, 097– 110. 10.1055/s-2002-19889. 11823940 · DOI
  5. Habre S. B.; Bond G.; Jing X. L.; Kostopoulos E.; Wallace R. D.; Konofaos P. The surgical management of nerve gaps: present and future. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2018, 80, 252– 261. 10.1097/sap.0000000000001252. 29166306 · DOI
  6. Farzamfar S.; Naseri-Nosar M.; Vaez A.; et al. Neural tissue regeneration by a gabapentinloaded cellulose acetate/gelatin wet-electrospun scaffold. Cellulose 2018, 25, 1229– 1238. 10.1007/s10570-017-1632-z. · DOI
  7. Jiang H.; Qian Y.; Fan C.; Ouyang O. Polymeric Guide Conduits for Peripheral Nerve Tissue Engineering. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 582646 10.3389/fbioe.2020.582646. 33102465 PMC7546820 · DOI
  8. Büeler H. Impaired mitochondrial dynamics and function in the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease. Exp. Neurol. 2009, 218, 235– 246. 10.1016/j.expneurol.2009.03.006. 19303005 · DOI
  9. Freed L. E.; Vunjak-Novakovic G.; Biron R. J.; Eagles D. B.; Lesnoy D. C.; Barlow S. K.; Langer R. Biodegradable polymer scaffolds for tissue engineering. Nat. Biotechnol. 1994, 12, 689– 693. 10.1038/nbt0794-689. 7764913 · DOI
  10. Evans G. R. D.; Brandt K.; Widmer M. S.; Lu L.; Meszlenyi R. K.; Gupta P. K.; Mikos A. G.; Hodges J.; Williams J.; Gürlek A.; Nabawi A.; Lohman R.; Patrick C. W. Jr In vivo evaluation of poly(l-lactic acid) porous conduits for peripheral nerve regeneration. Biomaterials 1999, 20, 1109– 1115. 10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00010-1. 10382826 · DOI
  11. Nakamura T.; Inada Y.; Fukuda S.; Yoshitani M.; Nakada A.; Itoi S.-i.; Kanemaru S.-i.; Endo K.; Shimizu Y. Experimental study on the regeneration of peripheral nerve gaps through a polyglycolic acid–collagen (PGA–collagen) tube. Brain Res. 2004, 1027, 18– 29. 10.1016/j.brainres.2004.08.040. 15494153 · DOI
  12. Panseri S.; Cunha C.; Lowery J.; Carro U. D.; Taraballi F.; Amadio S.; Vescovi A.; Gelain F. Electrospun micro-and nanofiber tubes for functional nervous regeneration in sciatic nerve transections. BMC Biotechnol. 2008, 8, 39 10.1186/1472-6750-8-39. 18405347 PMC2358889 · DOI
  13. Farzamfar S.; Salehi M.; Tavangar S. M.; Verdi J.; Mansouri K.; Ai A.; Malekshahi Z. V.; Ai J. A novel polycaprolactone/carbon nanofiber composite as a conductive neural guidance channel: an in vitro and in vivo study. Prog. Biomater. 2019, 8, 239– 248. 10.1007/s40204-019-00121-3. 31833033 PMC6930318 · DOI
  14. Wang X.; Hu W.; Cao Y.; Yao J.; Wu J.; Gu X. Dog sciatic nerve regeneration across a 30-mm defect bridged by a chitosan/PGA artificial nerve graft. Brain 2005, 128, 1897– 1910. 10.1093/brain/awh517. 15872018 · DOI
  15. Ramesh P. A.; Sethuraman S.; Subramanian A. Fabrication of Anatomically Equivalent Pectin-Based Multifilament Nerve Conduits. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2024, 7 (10), 6706– 6719. 10.1021/acsabm.4c00872. 39349393 · DOI
  16. Shlapakova L. E.; Pryadko A. S.; Zharkova I. I.; Volkov A.; Kozadaeva M.; Chernozem R. V.; Mukhortova Y. R.; Chesnokova D.; Zhuikov V. A.; Zeltser A.; Dudun A. A.; Makhina T.; Bonartseva G. A.; Voinova V. V.; Shaitan K. V.; Romanyuk K.; Kholkin A. L.; Bonartsev A. P.; Surmeneva M. A.; Surmenev R. A. Osteogenic Potential and Long-Term Enzymatic Biodegradation of PHB-based Scaffolds with Composite Magnetic Nanofillers in a Magnetic Field. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2024, 16 (42), 56555– 56579. 10.1021/acsami.4c06835. 39377758 · DOI
  17. Bini T. B.; Gao S.; Xu X.; Wang S.; Ramakrishna S.; Leong K. W. Peripheral nerve regeneration by microbraided poly(L-lactide-co-glycolide) biodegradable polymer fibers. J. Biomed. Mater. Res., Part A 2004, 68A, 286– 295. 10.1002/jbm.a.20050. 14704970 · DOI
  18. Bini T. B.; Shujun G.; Tan T. C.; Shu W.; Aymeric L.; Hai L. B.; Ramakrishna S. Electrospun poly(L-lactide- co -glycolide) biodegradable polymer nanofibre tubes for peripheral nerve regeneration. Nanotechnology 2004, 15, 1459 10.1088/0957-4484/15/11/014. · DOI
  19. Bini T. B.; Gao S.; Wang S.; Ramakrishna S. Poly(l-lactide-co-glycolide) biodegradable microfibers and electrospun nanofibers for nerve tissue engineering: an in vitro study. J. Mater. Sci. 2006, 41, 6453– 6459. 10.1007/s10853-006-0714-3. · DOI
  20. Daranarong D.; Thapsukhon B.; Wanandy N. S.; Molloy R.; Punyodom W.; Foster L. J. R. Application of low loading of collagen in electrospun poly[(l-lactide)-co-(ε-caprolactone)] nanofibrous scaffolds to promote cellular biocompatibility. Polym. Int. 2014, 63, 1254– 1262. 10.1002/pi.4631. · DOI
  21. Hiljanen-Vainio M.; Karjalainen T.; Seppälä J. Biodegradable lactone copolymers. I. Characterization and mechanical behavior of ε-caprolactone and lactide copolymers. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1996, 59, 1281– 1288. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19960222)59:8<1281::AID-APP11>3.0.CO;2-9. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Jeong S. I.; Kim B.-S.; Kang S. W.; Kwon J. H.; Lee Y. M.; Kim S. H.; Kim Y. H. In vivo biocompatibilty and degradation behavior of elastic poly(l-lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) scaffolds. Biomaterials 2004, 25, 5939– 5946. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.01.057. 15183608 · DOI
  23. Xie J.; Ihara M.; Jung Y.; Jung Y.; Kwon I. K.; Kim S. H.; Kim Y. H.; Matsuda T. Mechano-Active Scaffold Design Based on Microporous Poly(L-lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) for Articular Cartilage Tissue Engineering: Dependence of Porosity on Compression Force-Applied Mechanical Behaviors. Tissue Eng. 2006, 12, 449– 458. 10.1089/ten.2006.12.449. 16579678 · DOI
  24. Hudson T. W.; Evans G. R.; Schmidt C. E. Engineering strategies for peripheral nerve repair. Clin. Plast. Surg. 1999, 26, 617– 628. 10.1016/S0094-1298(20)32661-4. 10553217 · DOI
  25. Sarker M.; Naghieh S.; McInnes A. D.; Schreyer D. J.; Chen X. Strategic design and fabrication of nerve guidance conduits for peripheral nerve regeneration. Biotechnol. J. 2018, 13 (7), 1700635 10.1002/biot.201700635. 29396994 · DOI
  26. Shi Y.; Rittman L.; Vesely I. Novel Geometries for Tissue-Engineered Tendonous Collagen Constructs. Tissue Eng. 2006, 12, 2601– 2609. 10.1089/ten.2006.12.2601. 16995793 · DOI
  27. Matthews J. A.; Wnek G. E.; Simpson D. G.; Bowlin G. L. Electrospinning of Collagen Nanofibers. Biomacromolecules 2002, 3, 232– 238. 10.1021/bm015533u. 11888306 · DOI
  28. Prabhakaran M. P.; Venugopal J. R.; Ramakrishna S. Mesenchymal stem cell differentiation to neuronal cells on electrospun nanofibrous substrates for nerve tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 4996– 5003. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.05.057. 19539369 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Kanaya F.; Firrell J. C.; Breidenbach W. C. Sciatic function index, nerve conduction tests, muscle contraction, and axon morphometry as indicators of regeneration. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1996, 98, 1264– 1271. 10.1097/00006534-199612000-00023. 8942915 · DOI
  30. Nalampang K.; Molloy R.; Punyodom W. Synthesis and characterization of poly(L-lactide-co-ε- caprolactone) copolymers: influence of sequential monomer addition on chain microstructure. Polym. Adv. Technol. 2007, 18, 240– 248. 10.1002/pat.880. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Baimark Y.; Molloy R.; Molloy N.; Siripitayananon J.; Punyodom W.; Sriyai M. Synthesis, characterization and melt spinning of a block copolymer of L-lactide and ε -caprolactone for potential use as an absorbable monofilament surgical suture J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. 16 699 707 10.1007/s10856-005-2605-6. 15965738 · DOI
  32. Thapsukhon B.; Meepowpan P.; Molloy R.; Inthanon K.; Wongkham W.; Punyodom W. Effects of Copolymer Microstructure on the Properties of Electrospun Poly(L-lactide-co-caprolactone) Absorbable Nerve Guide Tubes. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2013, 130, 4357– 436. 10.1002/app.39675. · DOI
  33. Thapsukhon B.; Daranarong D.; Meepowpan P.; Suree N.; Molloy R.; Inthanon K.; Wongkham W.; Punyodom W. Effect of topology of poly(L-lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) scaffolds on the response of cultured human umbilical cord Wharton’s jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells and neuroblastoma cell lines. J. Biomater. Sci., Polym. Ed. 2014, 25, 1028– 1044. 10.1080/09205063.2014.918457. 24856087 · DOI
  34. Bain J. R.; Mackinnon S. E.; Hunter D. A. Functional Evaluation of Complete Sciatic, Peroneal, and Posterior Tibial Nerve Lesions in the Rat. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1989, 83, 129– 136. 10.1097/00006534-198901000-00024. 2909054 · DOI
  35. Thomson R. C.; Wake M. C.; Yaszemski M. J.; Mikos A. G. Biodegradable polymer scaffolds to regenerate organs. In Biopolymers II; Peppas N.; Langer R., Eds.; Advances in Polymer Science; Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1995; Vol. 122, pp 245– 274.
  36. Parry D. A. D.; Craig A. S. Collagen; CRC Press: Boaca Raton, FL, 1988.
  37. Titorencu I.; Jinga V.; Lungu A.; Trandafir V.; Albu M. G.; Rau I.; Iovu H. New Scaffold Structure Based on Collagen. Fabrication and Biocompatibility Evaluation. Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. 2008, 486, 147– 189. 10.1080/15421400801917932. · DOI
  38. Dornseifer U. L. F.; Fichter A. M.; Leichtle S.; Wilson A.; Rupp A.; Rodenacker K.; Ninkovic M.; Biemer E.; Machens H.-G.; Matiasek K.; Papadopulos N. A. Peripheral nerve reconstruction with collagen tubes filled with denatured autologous muscle tissue in the rat model. Microsurgery 2011, 31, 632– 641. 10.1002/micr.20926. 22072584 · DOI
  39. Giusti G.; Willems W. F.; Kremer T.; Friedrich P. F.; Bishop A. T.; Shin A. Y. Return of Motor Function After Segmental Nerve Loss in a Rat Model: Comparison of Autogenous Nerve Graft, Collagen Conduit, and Processed Allograft (AxoGen). J. Bone Jt. Surg 2012, 94, 410– 417. 10.2106/JBJS.K.00253. 22398734 · DOI
  40. Xu L.; Zhou S.; Feng G.-Y.; Zhang L.-P.; Zhao D.-M.; Sun Y.; Liu Q.; Huang F. Neural Stem Cells Enhance Nerve Regeneration after Sciatic Nerve Injury in Rats. Mol. Neurobiol. 2012, 46, 265– 274. 10.1007/s12035-012-8292-7. 22806359 · DOI
  41. Ichihara S.; Inada Y.; Nakamura T. Artificial nerve tubes and their application for repair of peripheral nerve injury: an update of current concepts. Injury 2008, 39, 29– 39. 10.1016/j.injury.2008.08.029. 18804584 · DOI
  42. ZENG X.; Sun Z.; Jia W.; et al. Recovery from rat sciatic nerve injury in vivo through the use of differentiated MDSCs in vitro. Exp. Ther. Med. 2013, 5, 193– 196. 10.3892/etm.2012.785. 23251266 PMC3523948 · DOI
  43. Deumens R.; Bozkurt A.; Meek M. F.; Marcus M. A. E.; Joosten E. A. J.; Weis J.; Brook G. A. Repairing injured peripheral nerves: Bridging the gap. Prog. Neurobiol. 2010, 92, 245– 276. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2010.10.002. 20950667 · DOI
  44. Adams A. M.; VanDusen K. W.; Kostrominova T. Y.; Mertens J. P.; Larkin L. M. Scaffoldless tissue-engineered nerve conduit promotes peripheral nerve regeneration and functional recovery after tibial nerve injury in rats. Neural Regener. Res. 2017, 12 (9), 1529– 1537. 10.4103/1673-5374.215265. PMC5649475 29090000 · DOI
  45. Long Q.; Wu B.; Yang Y.; Wang S.; Shen Y.; Bao Q.; Xu F. Nerve guidance conduit promoted peripheral nerve regeneration in rat. Artif. Organs 2021, 45, 616– 624. 10.1111/aor.13881. 33270261 · DOI
  46. Daly W.; Yao L.; Zeugolis D.; Windebank A.; Pandit A. A biomaterials approach to peripheral nerve regeneration: bridging the peripheral nerve gap and enhancing functional recovery. J. R. Soc. Interface 2012, 9 (67), 202– 221. 10.1098/rsif.2011.0438. 22090283 PMC3243399 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sananpanich, K., Wiwattanapanich, K., Daranarong, D., Namhongsa, M., Jringjit, W., Pleumsamran, A., Chaisuksunt, V., Chaisri, W., Chattipakorn, N., & Punyodom, W.
Affiliations
Chiang Mai University (TH)
Corresponding author
Punyodom, Winita
ORCID
Venue
ACS Omega
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2025-04-28
Volume
10
Issue
18
Pages
18470-18479
ISSN
2470-1343 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1021/acsomega.4c10800
PMC
PMC12079604
OpenAlex
W4409953777
Cited by
0
References
1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ACS Omega (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Thailand Science Research and Innovation (B13F660056)
  • Chiang Mai University
  • National Science and Technology Development Agency
  • National Research Council of Thailand (N34E670071)
  • Commission on Higher Education
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nerve injury and regeneration
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Keywords
poly(L-lactide-co-ε-caprolactone), peripheral nerve regeneration, autograft comparison, nerve regeneration, nerve conduction velocity

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