Journals / Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Tıp Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3

Digital Nerve Repair Results and Affecting Factors

Dijital Sinir Tamir Sonuçları ve Etkileyen Faktörler

Pages
150–154
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Epidemiological features other than age, time to surgery, follow-up time and other accompanying hand injuries do not have a significant effect on healing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to evaluate the success of the digital nerve repair and to examine the factors affecting recovery.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Seventy-three digital nerve repairs in 51 patients who were treated over a 3-year period were retrospectively included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Epidemiological features other than age, time to surgery, follow-up time and other accompanying hand injuries do not have a significant effect on healing.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dijital Sinir · İyileşme · Tamir

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the success of the digital nerve repair and to examine the factors affecting recovery. Seventy-three digital nerve repairs in 51 patients who were treated over a 3-year period were retrospectively included in the study. Patients' age, gender, profession, dominant hand, localization of the injured digital nerve, the time between injury and surgery, other hand injuries accompanying nerve injury, injury type and smoking habits were recorded. In the evaluation of the nerve recovery, two point discrimination test was used primarily, besides monoflament, tuning fork, skin, grip and pinch tests were also applied. In this study, 84.9% of nerve repairs were evaluated as good and very good according to the two-point discrimination test. According to the monoflament test, 72.6% was normal and decreased light touch. The positivity rate in the tuning fork test was 89% and according to the skin test, 86.3% of the patients were at the desired level. There was a negative relationship between age, smoking, injury type, and sensory recovery. Digital nerve repairs provide satisfactory results with high healing potential. Patient age, smoking, and type of injury negatively affect digital nerve repair results. Epidemiological features other than age, time to surgery, follow-up time and other accompanying hand injuries do not have a significant effect on healing.

Özet

Çalışmamızın amacı dijital sinir onarımı sonrası başarının objektif olarak değerlendirilmesi ve başarıyı etkileyen faktörlerin incelenmesidir. Çalışmaya 3 yıllık bir süre içinde tedavi edilen ve kontrole gelen 51 hastadaki 73 dijital sinir onarımı retrospektif olarak dahil edilmiştir. Hastaların yaşı, cinsiyeti, mesleği, dominant eli, yaralanan dijital sinirin lokalizasyonu, yaralanma ile ameliyat arasında geçen süre, sinir yaralanmasına eşlik eden diğer el yaralanmaları, yaralanma tipi ve sigara içme alışkanlıkları kayıt edilmiştir. İyileşmenin değerlendirilmesinde birincil olarak iki nokta diskriminasyon testi kullanılmış bunun yanında monofilament, diyapazon, ten, kavrama ve çimdikleme testleri de uygulanmıştır. Çalışmamızda sinir onarımlarının %84.9’unda iki nokta diskriminasyon testine göre iyi ve çok iyi olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Monofilament testine göre %72.6 normal ve azalmış hafif dokunma olarak bulunmuştur. Diyapazon testinde pozitiflik oranı %89 iken ten testine göre hastaların %86.3’ü istenen seviyede idi. Yaş, sigara kullanımı, yaralanma tipi ve duyusal iyileşme arasında negatif bir ilişki vardı. Dijital sinir tamirleri yüksek iyileşme potansiyeli ile tatminkâr sonuçlar vermektedir. Hastanın yaşı, sigara kullanımını ve yaralanma tipi dijital sinir tamir sonuçlarını kötü olarak etkilemekle birlikte, yaş dışında kalan epidemiyolojik özellikler, ameliyatta kadar geçen süre, takip süresi, eşlik eden diğer el yaralanmaları ve yaralanmanın olduğu parmak iyileşme üzerine anlamlı bir etkiye sahip değildir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇATAL, B. (2020). Digital Nerve Repair Results and Affecting Factors. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 3, 150–154. https://ajindex.com/articles/294094

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Lohmeyer JA, Sommer B, Siemers F, Mailänder P. Nerve injuries of the upper extremity-expected outcome and clinical examination. Plast Surg Nurs. 2009;29(2):88-93
  2. Herndon JH. Neuromas. In: Green DP. Green’s Operative Hand Surgery. 1988; 1405-1423. 4th Ed. New York: Churcill-Livingstone
  3. Pedretti LW, Early MB. Occupational therapy practice skills for physical dysfunction, 5th Ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 2001
  4. Efstathopoulos D, Gerostathopoulos N, Misitzis D, Bouchlis G, Anagnostou S, Daoutis NK. Clinical assessment of primary digital nerve repair. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1995;264(23):45–7
  5. Bulut T, Akgun U, Ozcan C, Unver B, Sener M. Inter- and intra-tester reliability of sensibility testing in digital nerve repair. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2016;41(6):621-3
  6. Young L, Wray RC, Weeks PM. A randomized prospective comparison of fascicular and epineural digital nerve repairs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981;68(1):89-93
  7. Calcagnotto GN, Braga Silva J. The treatment of digital nerve defects by the technique of vein conduit with nerve segment. A randomized prospective study. Chir Main. 2006;25(3-4):126-30
  8. Wang WZ, Crain GM, Baylis W, Tsai TM. Outcome of digital nerve injuries in adults. J Hand Surg Am. 1996;21(1):138-43
  9. Weinzweig N, Chin G, Mead M, et al. Recovery of sensibility after digital neurorrhaphy: a clinical investigation of prognostic factors. Ann Plast Surg. 2000;44(6):610-7
  10. Cheng AS, Hung L, Wong JM, Lau H, Chan J. A prospective study of early tactile stimulation after digital nerve repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(384):169-75
  11. Kallio PK. The results of secondary repair of 254 digital nerves.J Hand Surg Br. 1993;18(3):327-30
  12. Dellon AL, Mackinnon SE, Crosby PM. Reliability of two-point discrimination measurements. J Hand Surg Am. 1987;12(5):693-6
  13. Mailänder P, Berger A, Schaller E, Ruhe K. Results of primary nerve repair in the upper extremity. Microsurgery. 1989;10(2):147-50
  14. Novak CB, Mackinnon SE, Kelly L. Correlation of two-point discrimination and hand function following median nerve injury. Ann Plast Surg. 1993;31(6):495-8
  15. Efstathopoulos D, Gerostathopoulos N, Misitzis D, Bouchlis G, Anagnostou S, Daoutis NK. Clinical assessment of primary digital nerve repair. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1995;264:45-7
  16. Altissimi M, Mancini GB, Azzarà A. Results of primary repair of digital nerves. J Hand Surg Br. 1991;16(5):546-7
  17. Chaise F, Friol JP, Gaisne E. Results of emergency repair of wounds of palmar collate