The optimal number and location of sutures in conduit-assisted primary digital nerve repair

Comparative Effectiveness Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Peripheral Nerve Repair Using Direct Repair and Connector-assisted Repair

Background

This clinical literature systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess differences in outcomes between nerves repaired with direct repair (DR) and connector-assisted repair (CAR).

Methods

A systematic literature review for DR and CAR was performed. Studies from 1980 through August 2023 were included if DR or CAR repairs were performed in upper extremities with nerve gaps less than 5 mm and reported sensory Medical Research Council Classification (MRCC) outcomes or equivalent. Comparative analyses were planned for meaningful recovery (MR) rate (at both S3 and S3+ or better), postsurgical neuroma, cold intolerance, altered sensation, pain, and revision rate.

Results

There were significant differences in MR rates for CAR and DR. At the MRCC S3 threshold, 96.1% of CAR and 81.3% of DR achieved MR (P < 0.0001). At the MRCC S3+ threshold, 87.1% of CAR and 54.2% of DR achieved this higher threshold of MR (P < 0.0001). There were no differences in neuroma rate or pain scores in our dataset. Altered sensation (dysesthesia, paresthesia, hyperesthesia, or hypersensitivity) was not discussed in any CAR studies, so no analysis could be performed. The revision rate for both procedures was 0%. The proportion of patients with cold intolerance was 46.2% in the DR studies, which was significantly higher than the 10.7% of patients in the CAR group.

Conclusions

Significantly more patients achieved sensory MR and fewer had cold intolerance when the CAR technique, instead of the DR technique, was performed to repair peripheral nerve injuries.

A comparison of two versus five epineural sutures to achieve successful polyethylene glycol (PEG) nerve fusion in a rat sciatic nerve repair model

Background

We compared rates of successful polyethylene glycol (PEG) nerve fusion between two epineural suture repairs (2SR) and five epineural suture repairs (5SR) in a rat sciatic nerve transection neurorrhaphy model. We hypothesise that the two and five epineural neural suture repair groups will achieve a similar rate of PEG fusion.

Methods

Twenty-five Lewis rats underwent bilateral sciatic nerve transection. Primary neurorrhaphy (PN) consisting of 2SR in one hind limb and 5SR in the contralateral hind limb was performed utilizing PEG fusion. Successful PEG fusion was confirmed by a distal muscle twitch after nerve stimulation proximal to the nerve fusion site. Sciatic nerve conduction velocity (SNCV) across the repair site and the force generated by tibialis anterior muscle (TAM) contraction were also compared between the 2SR and 5SR groups.

Results

Success rates were 100% for the 2SR and the 5SR groups. No statistically significant differences in SNCV (P = 0.444) or isometric tetanic TAM contractile force (P = 0.820) were observed between 2SR and 5SR in the setting of PEG fusion.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate no significant difference in successful PEG fusion between the 2SR and 5SR groups. In addition, the findings demonstrate no statistically significant differences in SNCV or isometric tetanic TAM contractile force following sciatic nerve transection when performing a 2SR or 5SR PN in the setting of PEG fusion. Successful PEG fusion can be achieved acutely with either a two or five-epineural suture repair in a rat model.

Median and Digital Nerve In Situ Tension in the Hand

Background: Digital nerves will experience tension under normal daily activities, and understanding the amount of tension experienced in these nerves relates directly to the necessary strength in nerve repairs. To begin quantification of tension, the tension borne by the median and digital nerves in cadaveric hands was quantified under conditions of finger hyperextension, nerve distraction, and finger flexion. Methods: Five cadaveric hands were mounted in a special fixture that allowed finger hyperextension and flexion and could apply known distractions while the tension borne by each digital nerve was measured. Sequential dissection exposed the digital nerves so that measurements of tension in the median, common, and proper digital nerves were conducted with finger hyperextension, nerve distraction, and finger flexion. Results: Metacarpophalangeal (MCP) hyperextension of 30° created mean nerve tensions up to 0.64 N, 5 mm of nerve distraction created mean nerve tensions up to 1.23 N, and 90° of MCP flexion relieved up to a mean of 1.18 N of nerve tension. Conclusions: In situ tension is present in the median and digital nerves with digital motion. Finger hyperextension and nerve distraction produce tension, whereas finger flexion reduces tension. Existing nerve repairs are strong enough to withstand in situ nerve tensions produced by reasonable digital motion if the original nerve length is present.