Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair

Sener, Ufuk; ŞENER, MUHİTTİN; ÇITLAK, ATİLLA; BULUT, TUĞRUL; Akgun, Ulas; Aslan, Cihan

Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair

Tuğrul BULUT, (Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi, Atatürk Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Kliniği, İzmir, Türkiye)

Ulaş AKGÜN, (Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Anabilim Dalı, Muğla, Türkiye)

Atilla ÇITLAK, (Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi, Atatürk Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Kliniği, İzmir, Türkiye)

Cihan ASLAN, (Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi, Atatürk Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Kliniği, İzmir, Türkiye)

Ufuk ŞENER, (Sağlık Bakanlığı, Tepecik Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Nöroloji Kliniği, İzmir, Türkiye)

Muhittin ŞENER (Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi, Atatürk Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Kliniği, İzmir, Türkiye)

Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica

3 0

Yıl: 2016 Cilt: 50 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 157 - 161 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair

Öz:

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

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Cerrahi

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kuran B, Kuran I, Aydin H. Evaluation of sensation af- ter digital nerve operations. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 1993;27:104-6.
Kuran İ, Ozcan H, Kuran B, Aydin H. The surgical ap- proach to peripheral nerve repair. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 1995;29:37-40.
Mackinnon SE, Dellon AL. Clinical nerve reconstruction with a bioabsorbable polyglycolic acid tube. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990;85:419-24.
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.
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.
Swanson AB, Hagert CG, Swanson GD. Evaluation of im- pairment of hand function. J Hand Surg Am 1983;8(5 Pt 2):709-22.
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.
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;44:610-7.
Chaise F, Friol JP, Gaisne E. Results of emergency repair of wounds of palmar collateral nerves of the fingers. [Ar- ticle in French] Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 1993;79:393-7. [Abstract]
Segalman KA, Cook PA, Wang BH, Theisen L. Digital neurorrhaphy after the age of 60 years. J Reconstr Micro- surg 2001;17:85-8.
Wang WZ, Crain GM, Baylis W, Tsai TM. Outcome of digital nerve injuries in adults. J Hand Surg Am 1996;21:138-43.
Lee JJ, Patel R, Biermann JS, Dougherty PJ. The musculo- skeletal effects of cigarette smoking. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:850-9.
Wong LS, Martins-Green M. Firsthand cigarette smoke alters fibroblast migration and survival: implications for impaired healing. Wound Repair Regen 2004;12:471- 84.
al-Ghazal SK, McKiernan M, Khan K, McCann J. Results of clinical assessment after primary digital nerve repair. J Hand Surg Br 1994;19:255-7.
Rinker B, Liau JY. A prospective randomized study com- paring woven polyglycolic acid and autogenous vein con- duits for reconstruction of digital nerve gaps. J Hand Surg Am 2011;36:775-81.
Berger A, Mailänder P. Advances in peripheral nerve re- pair in emergency surgery of the hand. World J Surg 1991;15:493-500.
Tadjalli HE, McIntyre FH, Dolynchuk KN, Murray KA. Digital nerve repair: relationship between severity of injury and sensibility recovery. Ann Plast Surg 1995;35:36-40.
Slutsky DJ. The management of digital nerve injuries. J Hand Surg Am 2014;39:1208-15.
Fakin RM, Calcagni M, Klein HJ, Giovanoli P. Long- term clinical outcome after epineural coaptation of digital nerves. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2015. [Epub ahead of print]
Thomas PR, Saunders RJ1, Means KR2. Comparison of digital nerve sensory recovery after repair using loupe or operating microscope magnification. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2015;40:608-13.

APA	BULUT T, Akgun U, ÇITLAK A, Aslan C, Sener U, ŞENER M (2016). Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair. , 157 - 161.
Chicago	BULUT TUĞRUL,Akgun Ulas,ÇITLAK ATİLLA,Aslan Cihan,Sener Ufuk,ŞENER MUHİTTİN Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair. (2016): 157 - 161.
MLA	BULUT TUĞRUL,Akgun Ulas,ÇITLAK ATİLLA,Aslan Cihan,Sener Ufuk,ŞENER MUHİTTİN Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair. , 2016, ss.157 - 161.
AMA	BULUT T,Akgun U,ÇITLAK A,Aslan C,Sener U,ŞENER M Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair. . 2016; 157 - 161.
Vancouver	BULUT T,Akgun U,ÇITLAK A,Aslan C,Sener U,ŞENER M Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair. . 2016; 157 - 161.
IEEE	BULUT T,Akgun U,ÇITLAK A,Aslan C,Sener U,ŞENER M "Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair." , ss.157 - 161, 2016.
ISNAD	BULUT, TUĞRUL vd. "Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair". (2016), 157-161.

APA	BULUT T, Akgun U, ÇITLAK A, Aslan C, Sener U, ŞENER M (2016). Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, 50(2), 157 - 161.
Chicago	BULUT TUĞRUL,Akgun Ulas,ÇITLAK ATİLLA,Aslan Cihan,Sener Ufuk,ŞENER MUHİTTİN Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 50, no.2 (2016): 157 - 161.
MLA	BULUT TUĞRUL,Akgun Ulas,ÇITLAK ATİLLA,Aslan Cihan,Sener Ufuk,ŞENER MUHİTTİN Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, vol.50, no.2, 2016, ss.157 - 161.
AMA	BULUT T,Akgun U,ÇITLAK A,Aslan C,Sener U,ŞENER M Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica. 2016; 50(2): 157 - 161.
Vancouver	BULUT T,Akgun U,ÇITLAK A,Aslan C,Sener U,ŞENER M Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica. 2016; 50(2): 157 - 161.
IEEE	BULUT T,Akgun U,ÇITLAK A,Aslan C,Sener U,ŞENER M "Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair." Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, 50, ss.157 - 161, 2016.
ISNAD	BULUT, TUĞRUL vd. "Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair". Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 50/2 (2016), 157-161.