Peripheral Nerve Injury Upper Limb
Conditions
Brief summary
Muscle-in-vein conduits (MVCs) provide an alternative for bridging digital nerve defects when tension-free suture is not possible. Low donor site morbidity and absence of additional costs are favorable advantages compared to autografts or conduits. 37 patients with 43 defects of proper palmar digital nerves were retrospectively enrolled. Primary repair by MVCs was performed in 22 cases while 21 underwent secondary reconstruction. Recovery of sensibility was assessed by static and moving two-point discrimination (2PDs, 2PDm) and Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments (SWM). Results were compared with contralateral side serving as intraindividual control. Outcome data were stratified according to international guidelines and evaluated for differences in terms of age, gap length, time of reconstruction and concomitant injuries.
Interventions
OTHERNerve reconstruction
Nerve bridging with muscle-in-vein conduits
Sponsors
BG Trauma Center Tuebingen
Study design
Observational model
CASE_ONLY
Time perspective
RETROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
6 Years to 72 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
\- Patients with reconstruction of digital nerves with muscle-in-vein conduits
Exclusion criteria
* Subtotal or total amputations * pre-existing neurological disorders (e.g. polyneuropathy) * symptoms of nerve entrapment
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Two-point discrimination | Six months after reconstruction or later |
| Semmes-Weinstein-Monofilament test | Six months after reconstruction or later |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Age | Baseline |
| Gap length | Baseline |
| Time of reconstruction | Baseline |
| Concomitant injuries | Baseline |
Outcome results
None listed