4.2 Review

Challenges for Nerve Repair Using Chitosan-Siloxane Hybrid Porous Scaffolds

Journal

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 2014, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2014/153808

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Project TRIBONE [11458]
  2. European Community FEDER fund
  3. program COMPETE: Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade [Pest-OE/AGR/UI0211/2011]
  4. Projects QREN I&DT Cluster in Development of Products for Regenerative Medicine and Cell Therapie
  5. Projects Biomat Cell [QREN 2008/1372]
  6. Sanyo Broadcasting Gakujyutsu Bunka Foundation. This project was also cofinanced by the European Community FEDER fund [20072013]
  7. FCT, and Ministerio da Educacao e da Ciencia and Program Project Euronanomed [ENMED/0002/2010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The treatment of peripheral nerve injuries remains one of the greatest challenges of neurosurgery, as functional recover is rarely satisfactory in these patients. Recently, biodegradable nerve guides have shown great potential for enhancing nerve regeneration. A major advantage of these nerve guides is that no foreign material remains after the device has fulfilled its task, which spares a second surgical intervention. Recently, we studied peripheral nerve regeneration using chitosan-gamma-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane (chitosan-GPTMS) porous hybrid membranes. In our studies, these porous membranes significantly improved nerve fiber regeneration and functional recovery in rat models of axonotmetic and neurotmetic sciatic nerve injuries. In particular, the number of regenerated myelinated nerve fibers and myelin thickness were significantly higher in rat treated with chitosan porous hybrid membranes, whether or not they were used in combination with mesenchymal stem cells isolated from the Wharton's jelly of the umbilical cord. In this review, we describe our findings on the use of chitosan-GPTMS hybrids for nerve regeneration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available