Protocol for a phase I trial of a novel synthetic polymer nerve conduit 'Polynerve' in participants with sensory digital nerve injury (UMANC)

Bioengineered nerve conduits and wraps for peripheral nerve repair of the upper limb

BACKGROUND

Traumatic peripheral nerve injury is common and incurs significant cost to individuals and society. Healing following direct nerve repair or repair with autograft is slow and can be incomplete. Several bioengineered nerve wraps or devices have become available as an alternative to direct repair or autologous nerve graft. Nerve wraps attempt to reduce axonal escape across a direct repair site and nerve devices negate the need for a donor site defect, required by an autologous nerve graft. Comparative evidence to guide clinicians in their potential use is lacking. We collated existing evidence to guide the clinical application of currently available nerve wraps and conduits.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the effects and complication rates of licensed bioengineered nerve conduits or wraps for surgical repair of traumatic peripheral nerve injuries of the upper limb. To compare effects and complications against the current gold surgical standard (direct repair or nerve autograft).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 26 January 2022. We searched online and, where not accessible, contacted societies' secretariats to review abstracts from the British Surgical Society of the Hand, International Federation of Surgical Societies of the Hand, Federation of European Surgical Societies of the Hand, and the American Society for Peripheral Nerve from October 2007 to October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of nerve repair in the upper limb using a bioengineered wrap or conduit, with at least 12 months of follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane procedures. Our primary outcomes were 1. muscle strength and 2. sensory recovery at 24 months or more. Our secondary outcomes were 3. British Medical Research Council (BMRC) grading, 4. integrated functional outcome (Rosén Model Instrument (RMI)), 5. touch threshold, 6. two-point discrimination, 7. cold intolerance, 8. impact on daily living measured using the Disability of Arm Shoulder and Hand Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (DASH-PROM), 9. sensory nerve action potential, 10. cost of the device, and 11. adverse events (any and specific serious adverse events (further surgery)). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies involving 213 participants and 257 nerve injuries reconstructed with wraps or conduits (129 participants) or standard repair (128 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Of those in the standard repair group, 119 nerve injuries were managed with direct epineurial repair, and nine autologous nerve grafts were performed. One study excluded the outcome data for the repair using an autologous nerve graft from their analysis, as it was the only autologous nerve graft in the study, so data were available for 127 standard repairs. There was variation in the functional outcome measures reported and the time postoperatively at which they were recorded. Mean sensory recovery, assessed with BMRC sensory grading (range S0 to S4, higher score considered better) was 0.03 points higher in the device group (range 0.43 lower to 0.49 higher; 1 RCT, 28 participants; very low-certainty evidence) than in the standard repair group (mean 2.75 points), which suggested little or no difference between the groups, but the evidence is very uncertain. There may be little or no difference at 24 months in mean touch thresholds between standard repair (0.81) and repair using devices, which was 0.01 higher but this evidence is also very uncertain (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 lower to 0.08 higher; 1 trial, 32 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Data were not available to assess BMRC motor grading at 24 months or more. Repair using bioengineered devices may not improve integrated functional outcome scores at 24 months more than standard techniques, as assessed by the Rosén Model Instrument (RMI; range 0 to 3, higher scores better); the CIs allow for both no important difference and a better outcome with standard repair (mean RMI 1.875), compared to the device group (0.17 lower, 95% CI 0.38 lower to 0.05 higher; P = 0.13; 2 trials, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). Data from one study suggested that the five-year postoperative outcome of RMI may be slightly improved after repair using a device (mean difference (MD) 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.38; 1 trial, 28 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies measured impact on daily living using DASH-PROM. The proportion of people with adverse events may be greater with nerve wraps or conduits than with standard techniques, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 7.15, 95% CI 1.74 to 29.42; 5 RCTs, 213 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 10 adverse events per 1000 people in the standard repair group and 68 per 1000 (95% CI 17 to 280) in the device group. The use of nerve repair devices may be associated with a greater need for revision surgery but this evidence is also very uncertain (12/129 device repairs required revision surgery (removal) versus 0/127 standard repairs; RR 7.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 39.02; 5 RCTs, 256 nerve repairs; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, this review does not support use of currently available nerve repair devices over standard repair. There is significant heterogeneity in participants, injury pattern, repair timing, and outcome measures and their timing across studies of nerve repair using bioengineered devices, which make comparisons unreliable. Studies were generally small and at high or unclear risk of bias. These factors render the overall certainty of evidence for any outcome low or very low. The data reviewed here provide some evidence that more people may experience adverse events with use of currently available bioengineered devices than with standard repair techniques, and the need for revision surgery may also be greater. The evidence for sensory recovery is very uncertain and there are no data for muscle strength at 24 months (our primary outcome measures). We need further trials, adhering to a minimum standard of outcome reporting (with at least 12 months' follow-up, including integrated sensorimotor evaluation and patient-reported outcomes) to provide high-certainty evidence and facilitate more detailed analysis of effectiveness of emerging, increasingly sophisticated, bioengineered repair devices.

Advances and clinical challenges for translating nerve conduit technology from bench to bed side for peripheral nerve repair

Injuries to the peripheral nervous system remain a large-scale clinical problem. These injuries often lead to loss of motor and/or sensory function that significantly affects patients' quality of life. The current neurosurgical approach for peripheral nerve repair involves autologous nerve transplantation, which often leads to clinical complications. The most pressing need is to increase the regenerative capacity of existing tubular constructs in the repair of large nerve gaps through development of tissue-engineered approaches that can surpass the performance of autografts. To fully realize the clinical potential of nerve conduit technology, there is a need to reconsider design strategies, biomaterial selection, fabrication techniques and the various potential modifications to optimize a conduit microenvironment that can best mimic the natural process of regeneration. In recent years, a significant progress has been made in the designing and functionality of bioengineered nerve conduits to bridge long peripheral nerve gaps in various animal models. However, translation of this work from lab to commercial scale has not been achieve. The current review summarizes recent advances in the development of tissue engineered nerve guidance conduits (NGCs) with regard to choice of material, novel fabrication methods, surface modifications and regenerative cues such as stem cells and growth factors to improve regeneration performance. Also, the current clinical potential and future perspectives to achieve therapeutic benefits of NGCs will be discussed in context of peripheral nerve regeneration.

Protocol for a phase I trial of a novel synthetic polymer nerve conduit 'Polynerve' in participants with sensory digital nerve injury (UMANC)

Background: Peripheral nerve injuries are common, with approximately 9,000 cases in the UK annually. Young working individuals are predominantly affected, leading to significant health and social implications. Functional recovery is often poor with impaired hand sensation, reduced motor function and pain and cold intolerance. Where a nerve gap exists, nerve grafting remains the gold-standard treatment but creates a second surgical site, sensory deficit at the donor site, possible neuroma formation and has limited availability. Current commercially available synthetic and resorbable nerve conduit alternatives are reported to be rigid and inflexible. This study will set out to examine the first-in-man use of a new nerve conduit device ‘Polynerve’ to repair small nerve gaps in digital sensory nerves of the hand. Polynerve is a degradable co-polymer of poly-ε-caprolactone and poly-l-lactic acid, which is shaped as a cylinder that has greater tensile strength, flexibility and less acidic degradation compared with current commercially available synthetic nerve conduits. In addition, it has a novel micro-grooved internal lumen that aids Schwann cell ingress and alignment to improve nerve regeneration.

Methods: In total, 17 eligible participants will be recruited to undergo repair of a transected sensory nerve of the hand using the Polynerve device. All participants that receive the nerve conduit device will be followed for a period of 12 months post-surgery. The primary endpoint is safety of the device and the secondary endpoint is degree of sensory nerve regeneration through the conduit assessed using standard sensory testing (2-PD, WEST monofilament testing and locognosia).

Discussion: The ‘UMANC’ trial is a single-centre UK-based, prospective, unblinded, phase I clinical trial of a novel nerve conduit device. We aim to demonstrate the safety of Polynerve as a synthetic, biodegradable nerve conduit and improve the treatment options available to patients with significant nerve injuries.

Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02970864; EudraCT: 2016-001667-37.