THERAPY DOSSIER · th-cc71b64a8096

Hollow collagen nerve conduit and polyglycolic acid collagen-filled conduit

Device

Evidence & regulatory context

Mechanism: Not recorded
Target: Not recorded
Injury models: Other
Reported indication: Not recorded
First approval: Not recorded
Development stage: Not recorded
ChEMBL record: Not recorded
ChEMBL max phase: Not recorded
Synonyms: Not recorded
Note: Not recorded

Clinical trials 2

1 linked trials carry an injury-indication flag. These flags support record-level exploration and sit alongside the stringent aggregate counts described in Methods.

NCT06529835 ↗Injury indicationNArecruiting

A Comparison of NeuroSpan Bridge, NeuraGen Nerve Guide, and Nerve Autograft for Peripheral Nerve Repair

Peripheral Nerve Injuries

Enrolment: 80 · Results not recorded

NCT03875833 ↗NAwithdrawn

Prospective Analysis of Effect of Collagen Wrap Conduit on Radial and Ulnar Nerve Function

Head and Neck Neoplasms · Dysesthesia

Enrolment: 0 · Results not recorded

Preclinical evidence 1

1 studies reported at therapy level; 1 evidence entries itemised.

PMID 30502013 ↗2018Mixed findings

A Comparison Between Two Collagen Nerve Conduits and Nerve Autograft: A Rat Model of Motor Nerve Regeneration.

RatOtherSprague-DawleyMalen = 72 rats randomised into 3 groupsSurgical implantation across the 10 mm nerve gapAt the time of nerve transection

Model: Unilateral 10 mm sciatic nerve defect (acute transection injury) repaired at the time of injury

Autograft outperformed both conduits, and the hollow collagen conduit gave better recovery than the polyglycolic acid collagen-filled conduit, with differences in contractile force significant only at 12 weeks.

Extraction: extract · Supplied extraction confidence: 0.6. Machine-extracted fields require source verification.

Loading the evidence…