Trends in Nerve Transfer Procedures Among Board-Eligible Orthopedic Hand Surgeons

Following a Surgical Paradigm Shift Through the Adoption of Nerve Transfers Among Board-Eligible and Practicing Plastic Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Nerve transfers represent a new paradigm in the treatment of nerve injuries. Their current level of adoption among surgeons is unknown. This study evaluates the incidence of nerve transfers on case logs of board-eligible plastic surgeons over the past 14 years and surveys practicing nerve surgeons regarding their use of this technique.

METHODS

We queried the American Board of Plastic Surgery case log database for all nerve reconstruction Current Procedural Terminology codes from 2008 to 2021 and assessed trends and relationships between geographic region, examination year, and nerve transfer use. We surveyed nerve surgery professional societies to assess trends in practice, compared with a 2017 survey.

RESULTS

A total of 1959 nerve reconstruction cases were logged by 738 candidates from 2008 to 2021. Twelve percent of cases included nerve transfers. The proportion of nerve transfer codes (Z = -11.57; P < .0001) and the proportion of candidates performing nerve transfers (Z = -9.21, P < .0001) increased over the study period. Nerve transfers were associated with geographic region (χ² = 25.826, P = .0002), with most cases performed in the Midwest (26.4%). A higher proportion of practicing nerve surgeons reported performing nerve transfers in this survey than in our 2017 survey (χ² = 16.7, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been an increase in nerve transfers logged in the past 14 years by board-eligible plastic surgeons, as well as increased use among currently practicing nerve surgeons. Although nerve transfer use is increasing among both plastic and orthopedic surgeons, a greater proportion of nerve reconstructions include nerve transfers in the plastic surgery cohort.

Quantifying Donor Deficits Following Nerve Transfer Surgery in Tetraplegia

PURPOSE

Nerve transfer (NT) surgery can improve function in people with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). However, the impact of donor nerve deficits remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to quantify donor deficits experienced by individuals with cervical SCI following NT.

METHODS

This prospective single-arm, comparative study included people with SCI undergoing upper extremity NTs. Myometry was used to assess muscle strength at baseline and follow-up. The Spinal Cord Independence Measure was used to measure the ability to perform activities of daily living.

RESULTS

Ten individuals underwent 20 NTs to restore elbow extension (donor, posterior deltoid; n = 2), hand opening (donor, supinator; n = 7), and hand closing (donor, brachialis; n = 11). Shoulder abduction strength decreased (-5.6% at early and -4.5% late follow-up) in the elbow extension NT. Wrist extension strength decreased at early (-46.9% ± 30.3) and increased by late (76.4% ± 154.0) follow-up in the hand opening NT. No statistically significant change in elbow flexion strength was noted in the hand closing NT. Spinal Cord Independence Measure scores did not change significantly between baseline and early postoperative follow-up; they improved at late follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of expendable donor nerves with redundant function to perform NT surgery has relatively little impact on strength or capacity to perform activities of daily living, even in the unique and highly vulnerable SCI population. Early, temporary loss in wrist extension strength can be seen after the supinator to posterior interosseous nerve transfer. This study offers quantitative data about possible diminution of donor function after NT, enabling hand surgeons to better counsel individuals contemplating upper extremity reconstruction.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic I.

Longitudinal Analysis of Peripheral Nerve Surgery Training: Comparison of Neurosurgery to Plastic and Orthopedic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Residents in multiple surgical specialties are trained to perform peripheral nerve surgery (PNS), but the extent of exposure to this field varies among specialties. This study evaluates trends in volume of PNS performed during residency for neurologic surgery trainees compared to those in plastic and orthopedic surgery between 2009 and 2019.

METHODS

We queried ACGME for neurologic, plastic, and orthopedic surgery resident case-logs and compared mean number of PNS between graduating residents of each specialty using a one-way analysis of variance test. Linear regression was utilized to determine trends within and across the specialties over the study period.

RESULTS

Neurosurgery residents (24.76 ± 3.41) performed significantly fewer PNS than their counterparts in orthopedic (54.56 ± 6.85) and plastic surgery (71.96 ± 12.20), P < 0.001. Residents in neurologic surgery reported over 1.5-fold as many cases as their ACGME-required minimum, in contrast to plastic (2.5-fold) and orthopedic (5-fold). Plastics residents (3.46 cases/year) demonstrated the greatest longitudinal increase in PNS, followed by neurosurgery residents (0.81 cases/year). PNS accounted for a mean of 5.81% of neurosurgery resident cases, 4.20% of plastic surgery resident cases, and 2.98% of orthopedic surgery resident cases (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Neurosurgery residents exceeded the required minimum number of PNS and were increasingly more exposed to PNS. However, compared with their counterparts in orthopedic and plastic surgery, neurosurgery residents performed significantly fewer cases. Exposure for neurosurgery residents remains unchanged over the study period while plastic surgery residents experienced an increase in case volume. The deficiency in exposure for neurosurgical residents must be addressed to harness interest and proficiency in PNS.