A Systematic Review to Compare Electrical, Magnetic, and Optogenetic Stimulation for Peripheral Nerve Repair.

Area of Science:

• Neuroscience
• Regenerative Medicine
• Biomedical Engineering

Background:

• Peripheral nerve injuries (PNIs) significantly impact patient function and quality of life.
• Current therapeutic strategies for PNIs have limitations, necessitating novel approaches.
• External stimulation modalities offer potential for modulating neural activity and promoting nerve repair.

Purpose of the Study:

• To systematically review and compare the effectiveness of electrical stimulation (ES), optogenetic stimulation (OS), and magnetic stimulation (MS) for peripheral nerve regeneration (PNR).
• To assess the evidence for these external stimulation methods in enhancing recovery from PNIs in rodent models.

Main Methods:

• Systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
• Literature search of PubMed and Google Scholar for studies published between 2018 and 2023.
• Inclusion of 19 studies evaluating ES, OS, or MS for PNR, focusing on functional, histological, and electrophysiological outcomes.

Main Results:

• Electrical stimulation (ES) consistently showed improvements in peripheral nerve repair.
• High-frequency repetitive magnetic stimulation (HFr-MS) demonstrated accelerated PNR with positive histological and electrophysiological evidence.
• Optogenetic stimulation (OS) exhibited superior outcomes in functional recovery.

Conclusions:

• External stimulation, particularly HFr-MS and OS, holds significant potential for enhancing peripheral nerve regeneration and functional recovery.
• Methodological diversity in current research presents challenges for direct comparison of stimulation modalities.
• Standardized testing protocols are crucial for advancing the clinical application of these promising PNR strategies.