Traumatic peripheral nerve lesions affect hundreds of thousands of patients every year; their consequences are life-altering and often devastating and cause alterations in movement and sensitivity. Spontaneous peripheral nerve recovery is often inadequate. In this context, nowadays, cell therapy represents one of the most innovative approaches in the field of nerve repair therapies. The purpose of this systematic review is to discuss the features of different types of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) relevant for peripheral nerve regeneration after nerve injury. The published literature was reviewed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A combination of the keywords “nerve regeneration”, “stem cells”, “peripheral nerve injury”, “rat”, and “human” were used. Additionally, a “MeSH” research was performed in PubMed using the terms “stem cells” and “nerve regeneration”. The characteristics of the most widely used MSCs, their paracrine potential, targeted stimulation, and differentiation potentials into Schwann-like and neuronal-like cells are described in this paper. Considering their ability to support and stimulate axonal growth, their remarkable paracrine activity, their presumed differentiation potential, their extremely low immunogenicity, and their high survival rate after transplantation, ADSCs appear to be the most suitable and promising MSCs for the recovery of peripheral nerve lesion. Clinical considerations are finally reported.

Mesenchymal Stem Cell Treatment Perspectives in Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: Systematic Review

Andrea Lavorato
First
;
Stefania Raimondo;Marina Boido;Luisa Muratori;Fabio Cofano;Francesca Vincitorio;Salvatore Petrone;Paolo Titolo;Alessandro Vercelli;Diego Garbossa
Last
2021-01-01

Abstract

Traumatic peripheral nerve lesions affect hundreds of thousands of patients every year; their consequences are life-altering and often devastating and cause alterations in movement and sensitivity. Spontaneous peripheral nerve recovery is often inadequate. In this context, nowadays, cell therapy represents one of the most innovative approaches in the field of nerve repair therapies. The purpose of this systematic review is to discuss the features of different types of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) relevant for peripheral nerve regeneration after nerve injury. The published literature was reviewed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A combination of the keywords “nerve regeneration”, “stem cells”, “peripheral nerve injury”, “rat”, and “human” were used. Additionally, a “MeSH” research was performed in PubMed using the terms “stem cells” and “nerve regeneration”. The characteristics of the most widely used MSCs, their paracrine potential, targeted stimulation, and differentiation potentials into Schwann-like and neuronal-like cells are described in this paper. Considering their ability to support and stimulate axonal growth, their remarkable paracrine activity, their presumed differentiation potential, their extremely low immunogenicity, and their high survival rate after transplantation, ADSCs appear to be the most suitable and promising MSCs for the recovery of peripheral nerve lesion. Clinical considerations are finally reported.
2021
1
21
mesenchymal stem cells; nerve lesions; peripheral nerve regeneration; regenerative medicine
Andrea Lavorato, Stefania Raimondo, Marina Boido, Luisa Muratori, Giorgia Durante, Fabio Cofano, Francesca Vincitorio, Salvatore Petrone, Paolo Titolo...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
REVIEW LAVORATO.pdf

Accesso aperto

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 1.04 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.04 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1768575
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 26
  • Scopus 65
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 63
social impact