Peripheral Nerve Injury
Conditions
Keywords
ulna, median, repair, primary
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to determine which surgical approach is better for clean transection injury in peripheral nerves in outcomes.
Detailed description
Treatment of injuries to major nerve trunks in the hand and upper extremity remains a major and challenging reconstructive problem. Our goal was to compare primary versus secondary repair of median and\\or ulnar nerve by electrodiagnostic assessment and clinical examination.
Interventions
PROCEDUREprimary repair
during the first days,the nerve was conducted to repair as end to end (epi-epineurium, epi-epineurium) anastomosis. This was performed following the repair of present tendons and muscle injuries.
PROCEDUREsecondary repair
after one week,the nerve was conducted to repair as end to end (epi-epineurium, epi-epineurium) anastomosis. This was performed following the repair of present tendons and muscle injuries.
Sponsors
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
Study design
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* patients with confirmed clean transection injury between shoulder and wrist
Exclusion criteria
* crush injuries
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| motor function | at 18 months post-operatively | identification of motor level were done based on British Medical Research Council guided.The abductor pollicis brevis (APB) was used for the median nerve and the abductor digiti minimi (ADM) for the ulnar nerve. as follows: 0, M0, M1 and M2; 1, M3; 2, M4. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| sensory recovery | at 18 months post-operatively | identification of motor and sensory level were done based on British Medical Research Council guided.The abductor pollicis brevis (APB) was used for the median nerve and the abductor digiti minimi (ADM) for the ulnar nerve. The results scored as follows: 0, S0, S1 and S2; 1, S3; 2, S4 and S5. |
| nerve conduction velocity | at 18 months post-operatively | For electrodiagnostic assessment, nerve conduction velocity (NCV) was tested as motor and sensory. The results categorized according to the Yale sensory scale and the severity of sensation and function of the nerves was scored as follows: 0, no sensation; 1, decreased or abnormal sensation; 2, normal sensation. |
| electromyography | at 18 months post-operatively | For an EMG, a needle electrode was inserted through the skin into the muscle which injured nerve supplied. The presence, size and shape of the waveform registered and the ability of the muscle to respond when the nerves were stimulated. Also these results scored as follows: 0, no activity; 1, few or single movement; 2, partial activity; 3, full activity. |
Countries
Iran
Outcome results
None listed