Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2016 / Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 2

Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair

Pages
157–161
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)

There was a negative relationship between age, smoking, concomitant injuries, and sensory recovery.Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that concomitant tendon, bone and vascular injuries, older age, and smoking were associated with worse sensory nerve recovery results.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The prognostic factors that affect sensory nerve recovery after digital nerve repair are variable because of nonhomogeneous data, subjective tests, and different assessment/scoring methods.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study was to evaluate the success of sensory nerve recovery after digital nerve repair and to investigate the prognostic factors in sensorial healing.Methods: Ninety-six digital nerve repairs of 63 patients were retrospectively evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There was a negative relationship between age, smoking, concomitant injuries, and sensory recovery.Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that concomitant tendon, bone and vascular injuries, older age, and smoking were associated with worse sensory nerve recovery results.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The prognostic factors that affect sensory nerve recovery after digital nerve repair are variable because of nonhomogeneous data, subjective tests, and different assessment/scoring methods. The aim of this study was to evaluate the success of sensory nerve recovery after digital nerve repair and to investigate the prognostic factors in sensorial healing.Methods: Ninety-six digital nerve repairs of 63 patients were retrospectively evaluated. All nerves were repaired with end-to-end neurorraphy. The static two-point discrimination (s2PD) and Semmes Weinstein monofilament (SWM) tests were performed to evaluate sensory recovery. The association between prognostic factors such as gender, age, involved digit, time from injury to repair, length of follow-up, smoking, concomitant injuries, type of injury, and sensory recovery results were assessed.Results: The s2PD test demonstrated excellent results in 26 nerves (27%), good results in 61 nerves (64%), and poor results in 9 nerves (9%). The results of the SWM test according to Imai classification showed that 31 nerves (32%) were normal, light touch was diminished in 38 nerves (40%), protective sensation was diminished in 17 nerves (18%), loss of protective sensation occurred in 5 nerves (5%), and 5 nerves (5%) were anesthetic. There was a negative relationship between age, smoking, concomitant injuries, and sensory recovery.Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that concomitant tendon, bone and vascular injuries, older age, and smoking were associated with worse sensory nerve recovery results. However, all digital nerve injuries should be repaired, regardless of these prognostic factors

🔖

Cite This Article

BULUT, T., AKGÜN, U., ÇITLAK, A., ASLAN, C., ŞENER, U., ŞENER, M. (2016). Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 2, 157–161. https://ajindex.com/articles/353547

References (13)

  1. McAllister RM, Gilbert SE, Calder JS, Smith PJ. The epidemiology and management of upper limb periph- eral nerve injuries in modern practice. J Hand Surg Br 1996;21:4-13. Thorsén F, Rosberg HE, Steen Carlsson K, Dahlin LB. Digital nerve injuries: epidemiology, results, costs, and im- pact on daily life. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2012;46:184-90.
  2. Tenny JR, Lewis RC. Digital nerve-grafting for traumatic defects. Use of the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984;66:1375-9.
  3. Risitano G, Cavallaro G, Merrino T, Coppolino S, Ruggeri F. Clinical results and thoughts on sensory nerve repair by autologous vein graft in emergency hand reconstruction. Chir Main 2002;21:194-7. Kallio PK. The results of secondary repair of 254 digital nerves. J Hand Surg Br 1993;18:327-30.
  4. Guo Y, Chen G, Tian G, Tapia C. Sensory recovery follow- ing decellularized nerve allograft transplantation for digital nerve repair. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2013;47:451-3.
  5. Efstathopoulos D, Gerostathopoulos N, Misitzis D, Bouchlis G, Anagnostou S, Daoutis NK. Clinical assess- ment of primary digital nerve repair. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1995;264:45-7.
  6. Kuran B, Kuran I, Aydin H. Evaluation of sensation af- ter digital nerve operations. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 1993;27:104-6.
  7. Kuran İ, Ozcan H, Kuran B, Aydin H. The surgical ap- proach to peripheral nerve repair. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 1995;29:37-40.
  8. Mackinnon SE, Dellon AL. Clinical nerve reconstruction with a bioabsorbable polyglycolic acid tube. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990;85:419-24.
  9. Imai H, Tajima T, Natsuma Y. Interpretation of cutane- ous pressure threshold (Semmes-Weinstein monofilament measurement) following median nerve repair and sensory reeducation in the adult. Microsurgery 1989;10:142-4.
  10. Mermans JF, Franssen BB, Serroyen J, Van der Hulst RR. Digital nerve injuries: a review of predictors of sensory re- covery after microsurgical digital nerve repair. Hand (N Y) 2012;7:233-41.
  11. Swanson AB, Hagert CG, Swanson GD. Evaluation of im- pairment of hand function. J Hand Surg Am 1983;8(5 Pt 2):709-22.
  12. Altissimi M, Mancini GB, Azzarà A. Results of primary repair of digital nerves. J Hand Surg Br 1991;16:546-7. Mailänder P, Berger A, Schaller E, Ruhe K. Results of pri- mary nerve repair in the upper extremity. Microsurgery 1989;10:147-50.
  13. Weinzweig N, Chin G, Mead M, Stone A, Nagle D, Gon- zalez M, et al. Recovery of sensibility after digital neuror- rhaphy: a clinical investigation of prognostic factors. Ann Plast Surg 2000;44:6