Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2015; 31(05): 384-390
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1549160
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Outcomes of Short-Gap Sensory Nerve Injuries Reconstructed with Processed Nerve Allografts from a Multicenter Registry Study

Brian D. Rinker
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky
,
John V. Ingari
2   Hand Surgery Division, WellSpan Orthopedics, York, Pennsylvania
,
Jeffrey A. Greenberg
3   Indiana Hand to Shoulder Center, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Wesley P. Thayer
4   Department of Plastic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Bauback Safa
5   Department of Reconstructive Microsurgery, The Buncke Clinic, San Francisco, California
,
Gregory M. Buncke
5   Department of Reconstructive Microsurgery, The Buncke Clinic, San Francisco, California
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

18 November 2014

04 February 2015

Publication Date:
20 April 2015 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Short-gap digital nerve injuries are a common surgical problem, but the optimal treatment modality is unknown. A multicenter database was queried and analyzed to determine the outcomes of nerve gap reconstructions between 5 and 15 mm with processed nerve allograft.

Methods The current RANGER registry is designed to continuously monitor and compile injury, repair, safety, and outcomes data. Centers followed their own standard of care for treatment and follow-up. The database was queried for digital nerve injuries with a gap between 5 and 15 mm reporting sufficient follow-up data to complete outcomes analysis. Available quantitative outcome measures were reviewed and reported. Meaningful recovery was defined by the Medical Research Council Classification (MRCC) scale at S3-S4 for sensory function.

Results Sufficient follow-up data were available for 24 subjects (37 repairs) in the prescribed gap range. Mean age was 43 years (range, 23–81). Mean gap was 11 ± 3 (5–15) mm. Time to repair was 13 ± 42 (0–215) days. There were 25 lacerations, 8 avulsion/amputations, 2 gunshots, 1 crush injury, and 1 injury of unknown mechanism. Meaningful recovery, defined as S3-S4 on the MRCC scales, was reported in 92% of repairs. Sensory recovery of S3+ or S4 was observed in 84% of repairs. Static 2PD was 7.1 ± 2.9 mm (n = 19). Return to light touch was observed in 23 out of 32 repairs reporting Semmes-Weinstein monofilament outcomes (SWMF). There were no reported nerve adverse events.

Conclusion Sensory outcomes for processed nerve allografts were equivalent to historical controls for nerve autograft and exceed those of conduit. Processed nerve allografts provide an effective solution for short-gap digital nerve reconstructions.

Keywords

processed nerve allograft - digital nerve - nerve reconstruction - peripheral nerve
 

  • References

  • 1 Artico M, Cervoni L, Nucci F, Giuffré R. Birthday of peripheral nervous system surgery: the contribution of Gabriele Ferrara (1543-1627). Neurosurgery 1996; 39 (2) 380-382 , discussion 382–383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Yi C, Dahlin LB. Impaired nerve regeneration and Schwann cell activation after repair with tension. Neuroreport 2010; 21 (14) 958-962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lohmeyer JA, Siemers F, Machens HG, Mailänder P. The clinical use of artificial nerve conduits for digital nerve repair: a prospective cohort study and literature review. J Reconstr Microsurg 2009; 25 (1) 55-61
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Weber RA, Breidenbach WC, Brown RE, Jabaley ME, Mass DP. A randomized prospective study of polyglycolic acid conduits for digital nerve reconstruction in humans. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106 (5) 1036-1045 , discussion 1046–1048
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rinker B, Liau JY. A prospective randomized study comparing woven polyglycolic acid and autogenous vein conduits for reconstruction of digital nerve gaps. J Hand Surg Am 2011; 36 (5) 775-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mermans JF, Franssen BBGM, Serroyen J, Van der Hulst RR. Digital nerve injuries: a review of predictors of sensory recovery after microsurgical digital nerve repair. Hand (NY) 2012; 7 (3) 233-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Berger A, Millesi H. Nerve grafting. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1978; (133) 49-55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lee SK, Wolfe SW. Peripheral nerve injury and repair. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2000; 8 (4) 243-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ehretsman RL, Novak CB, Mackinnon SE. Subjective recovery of nerve graft donor site. Ann Plast Surg 1999; 43 (6) 606-612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 IJpma FFA, Nicolai JP, Meek MF. Sural nerve donor-site morbidity: thirty-four years of follow-up. Ann Plast Surg 2006; 57 (4) 391-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Chiu DT, Janecka I, Krizek TJ, Wolff M, Lovelace RE. Autogenous vein graft as a conduit for nerve regeneration. Surgery 1982; 91 (2) 226-233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Walton RL, Brown RE, Matory Jr WE, Borah GL, Dolph JL. Autogenous vein graft repair of digital nerve defects in the finger: a retrospective clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 84 (6) 944-949 , discussion 950–952
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chiu DT, Strauch B. A prospective clinical evaluation of autogenous vein grafts used as a nerve conduit for distal sensory nerve defects of 3 cm or less. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 86 (5) 928-934
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Schlosshauer B, Dreesmann L, Schaller H-E, Sinis N. Synthetic nerve guide implants in humans: a comprehensive survey. Neurosurgery 2006; 59 (4) 740-747 , discussion 747–748
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dienstknecht T, Klein S, Vykoukal J , et al. Type I collagen nerve conduits for median nerve repairs in the forearm. J Hand Surg Am 2013; 38 (6) 1119-1124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jiang X, Lim SH, Mao HQ, Chew SY. Current applications and future perspectives of artificial nerve conduits. Exp Neurol 2010; 223 (1) 86-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hudson TW, Zawko S, Deister C , et al. Optimized acellular nerve graft is immunologically tolerated and supports regeneration. Tissue Eng 2004; 10 (11-12) 1641-1651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sondell M, Lundborg G, Kanje M. Regeneration of the rat sciatic nerve into allografts made acellular through chemical extraction. Brain Res 1998; 795 (1-2) 44-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Whitlock EL, Tuffaha SH, Luciano JP , et al. Processed allografts and type I collagen conduits for repair of peripheral nerve gaps. Muscle Nerve 2009; 39 (6) 787-799
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Karabekmez FE, Duymaz A, Moran SL. Early clinical outcomes with the use of decellularized nerve allograft for repair of sensory defects within the hand. Hand (NY) 2009; 4 (3) 245-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Brooks DN, Weber RV, Chao JD , et al. Processed nerve allografts for peripheral nerve reconstruction: a multicenter study of utilization and outcomes in sensory, mixed, and motor nerve reconstructions. Microsurgery 2012; 32 (1) 1-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cho MS, Rinker BD, Weber RV , et al. Functional outcome following nerve repair in the upper extremity using processed nerve allograft. J Hand Surg Am 2012; 37 (11) 2340-2349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mackinnon SE, Dellon AL. Results of nerve repair and grafting. In: Surgery of the Peripheral Nerve, 1st ed. New York: Thieme Medical; 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Brushhart TM. Nerve repair. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Schmidt G. Eduard Albert and the beginning of human nerve grafting. Acta Chirurgica Austriaca 1993; 25: 287-288
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Evans PJ, MacKinnon SE, Midha R , et al. Regeneration across cold preserved peripheral nerve allografts. Microsurgery 1999; 19 (3) 115-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mackinnon SE, Doolabh VB, Novak CB, Trulock EP. Clinical outcome following nerve allograft transplantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107 (6) 1419-1429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Chiriac S, Facca S, Diaconu M, Gouzou S, Liverneaux P. Experience of using the bioresorbable copolyester poly(DL-lactide-ε-caprolactone) nerve conduit guide Neurolac™ for nerve repair in peripheral nerve defects: report on a series of 28 lesions. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2012; 37 (4) 342-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Frykman G, Gramyk K. Results of nerve grafting. In: Gelberman R, , ed. Operative Nerve Repair and Reconstruction. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott; 1991: 553-567
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Taras JS, Jacoby SM, Lincoski CJ. Reconstruction of digital nerves with collagen conduits. J Hand Surg Am 2011; 36 (9) 1441-1446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kallio PK. The results of secondary repair of 254 digital nerves. J Hand Surg [Br] 1993; 18 (3) 327-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Nunley JA, Ugino MR, Goldner RD, Regan N, Urbaniak JR. Use of the anterior branch of the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve as a graft for the repair of defects of the digital nerve. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989; 71 (4) 563-567
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Battiston B, Geuna S, Ferrero M, Tos P. Nerve repair by means of tubulization: literature review and personal clinical experience comparing biological and synthetic conduits for sensory nerve repair. Microsurgery 2005; 25 (4) 258-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Chiriac S, Facca S, Diaconu M, Gouzou S, Liverneaux P. Experience of using the bioresorbable copolyester poly(DL-lactide-ε-caprolactone) nerve conduit guide Neurolac™ for nerve repair in peripheral nerve defects: report on a series of 28 lesions. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2012; 37 (4) 342-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bushnell BD, McWilliams AD, Whitener GB, Messer TM. Early clinical experience with collagen nerve tubes in digital nerve repair. J Hand Surg Am 2008; 33 (7) 1081-1087
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Haug A, Bartels A, Kotas J, Kunesch E. Sensory recovery 1.  year after bridging digital nerve defects with collagen tubes. J Hand Surg Am 2013; 38 (1) 90-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Lohmeyer JA, Kern Y, Schmauss D , et al. Prospective clinical study on digital nerve repair with collagen nerve conduits and review of literature. J Reconstr Microsurg 2014; 30 (4) 227-234
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Schmauss D, Finck T, Liodaki E , et al. Is nerve regeneration after reconstruction with collagen nerve conduits terminated after 12 months? the long-term follow-up of two prospective clinical studies. J Reconstr Microsurg 2014; 30 (8) 561-568
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Shippert RD. A study of time-dependent operating room fees and how to save $100,000 by using time-saving products. Am J Cosmet Surg 2005; 22 (1) 25-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Liodaki E, Bos I, Lohmeyer JA , et al. Removal of collagen nerve conduits (NeuraGen) after unsuccessful implantation: focus on histological findings. J Reconstr Microsurg 2013; 29 (8) 517-522
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar