Closing the Gap: Bridging Peripheral Sensory Nerve Defects with a Chitosan-Based Conduit a Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial.
chitosan
nerve conduit
nerve gap
nerve regeneration
nerve surgery
peripheral nerve injuries
Journal
Journal of personalized medicine
ISSN: 2075-4426
Titre abrégé: J Pers Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101602269
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 May 2022
30 May 2022
Historique:
received:
29
04
2022
revised:
20
05
2022
accepted:
24
05
2022
entrez:
24
6
2022
pubmed:
25
6
2022
medline:
25
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Introduction: If tensionless nerve coaptation is not possible, bridging the resulting peripheral nerve defect with an autologous nerve graft is still the current gold standard. The concept of conduits as an alternative with different materials and architectures, such as autologous vein conduits or bioartificial nerve conduits, could not replace the nerve graft until today. Chitosan, as a relatively new biomaterial, has recently demonstrated exceptional biocompatibility and material stability with neural lineage cells. The purpose of this prospective randomized clinical experiment was to determine the efficacy of chitosan-based nerve conduits in regenerating sensory nerves in the hand. Materials and methods: Forty-seven patients with peripheral nerve defects up to 26 mm distal to the carpal tunnel were randomized to receive either a chitosan conduit or an autologous nerve graft with the latter serving as the control group. Fifteen patients from the conduit group and seven patients from the control group were available for a 12-month follow-up examination. The primary outcome parameter was tactile gnosis measured with two-point discrimination. The secondary outcome parameters were Semmens Weinstein Monofilament Testing, self-assessed pain, and patient satisfaction. Results: Significant improvement (in static two-point discrimination) was observed six months after trauma (10.7 ± 1.2 mm; p < 0.05) for chitosan-based nerve conduits, but no further improvement was observed after 12 months of regeneration (10.9 ± 1.3 mm). After six months and twelve months, the autologous nerve graft demonstrated comparable results to the nerve conduit, with a static two-point discrimination of 11.0 ± 2.0 mm and 7.9 ± 1.1 mm. Semmes Weinstein Filament Testing in the nerve conduit group showed a continuous improvement over the regeneration period by reaching from 3.1 ± 0.3 after three months up to 3.7 ± 0.4 after twelve months. Autologous nerve grafts presented similar results: 3.3 ± 0.4 after three months and 3.7 ± 0.5 after twelve months. Patient satisfaction and self-reported pain levels were similar between the chitosan nerve conduit and nerve graft groups. One patient required revision surgery due to complications associated with the chitosan nerve tube. Conclusion: Chitosan-based nerve conduits are safe and suitable for bridging nerve lesions up to 26 mm in the hand. Tactile gnosis improved significantly during the early regeneration period, and functional outcomes were similar to those obtained with an autologous nerve graft. Thus, chitosan appears to be a sufficient substitute for autologous nerve grafts in the treatment of small nerve defects in the hand.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35743685
pii: jpm12060900
doi: 10.3390/jpm12060900
pmc: PMC9224872
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Medovent GmbH
ID : no grant number
Références
J Hand Surg Am. 2018 Jan;43(1):86.e1-86.e8
pubmed: 28951100
Int J Pharm. 2016 Jul 11;508(1-2):92-101
pubmed: 27163526
J Hand Surg Am. 2006 Nov;31(9):1495-8
pubmed: 17095380
World Neurosurg. 2019 Jul;127:e1176-e1184
pubmed: 31003028
Mol Med Rep. 2018 Mar;17(3):4360-4368
pubmed: 29328458
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021 Jun;45(3):1282-1293
pubmed: 33474574
Prog Neurobiol. 2010 Nov;92(3):245-76
pubmed: 20950667
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2013;109:1-62
pubmed: 24093605
J Hand Surg Am. 2011 May;36(5):775-81
pubmed: 21489720
Muscle Nerve. 2020 Jul;62(1):119-127
pubmed: 32243602
Ann Plast Surg. 2008 Apr;60(4):466-72
pubmed: 18437784
Exp Neurol. 2011 Dec;232(2):110-3
pubmed: 21945007
Neurochem Res. 2014 Nov;39(11):2047-57
pubmed: 25119164
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013 Oct;66(10):1307-15
pubmed: 23827446
Hand Surg Rehabil. 2020 Oct;39(5):343-351
pubmed: 32485240
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2009 Jan;25(1):55-61
pubmed: 19037847
Microsurgery. 2014 Nov;34(8):608-15
pubmed: 25088084
Eur J Med Res. 2017 Sep 22;22(1):34
pubmed: 28938917
Mol Neurobiol. 2016 Jan;53(1):28-39
pubmed: 25399953
Chir Main. 2002 May;21(3):194-7
pubmed: 12116832
Minerva Chir. 1967 Sep 15;22(17):950-1
pubmed: 6055379
Carbohydr Polym. 2016 Nov 5;152:119-128
pubmed: 27516256
Microsurgery. 2009;29(8):650-6
pubmed: 19653322
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Aug;142(2):415-424
pubmed: 30045179
J Hand Surg Br. 2004 Oct;29(5):418-22
pubmed: 15336741
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2012 May;37(4):342-9
pubmed: 21987277
Microsurgery. 2020 Jul;40(5):527-537
pubmed: 32101338
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 Mar 13;7(3):e2163
pubmed: 31044125
Eur J Neurosci. 2016 Feb;43(3):404-16
pubmed: 26296589
Chir Main. 2010 Sep;29(4):255-62
pubmed: 20727807
Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2003;5:293-347
pubmed: 14527315
Aesthet Surg J. 2021 Jun 14;41(7):NP854-NP865
pubmed: 33534905
Biomaterials. 2005 Aug;26(22):4624-32
pubmed: 15722132
Int J Artif Organs. 2007 Jan;30(1):64-74
pubmed: 17295194
Cell Transplant. 2016;25(1):159-82
pubmed: 25876520
Injury. 2012 May;43(5):553-72
pubmed: 21269624
Microsurgery. 2011 Nov;31(8):642-9
pubmed: 22009638
Hand Clin. 2013 Aug;29(3):349-61
pubmed: 23895715