Cross-Sectional Evaluation of the Economic Burden on Patients Seeking Surgical Treatment for Chronic Nerve Injuries.

INTRODUCTION: Little emphasis has been paid toward characterizing the socioeconomic burdens experienced by patients seeking treatment for chronic nerve injuries. The aim of this study was to characterize the direct and indirect costs faced by patients with chronic nerve injuries and their attendant health care utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to all patients (N = 767) from a single nerve surgeon's practice treated for chronic nerve injuries in the ambulatory setting between 2014 and 2020. Data collected included demographics, etiology, comorbidities, duration and severity of symptoms, history of prior medical and interventional treatments, work or school time lost due to injury or treatment, money spent on treatment, and health care utilization. RESULTS: Of the 767 patients, 209 (27.2%) completed the survey. Average age was 48.8 (SD = 19.1) years, 68.9% female and 31.1% male. Patients with chronic nerve injury reported significant direct costs, indirect costs, and health care utilization associated with their nerve injury symptoms. Direct costs consisted of out-of-pocket spending (68.4% had spent >$1000 per year), physician specialists visits (71.3% had seen at least 4 specialists), and prior interventional procedures intended to address symptoms. Indirect costs included lost time from work or school (24.6% had missed more than 12 months). Health care utilization, represented by annual emergency room visits and hospitalizations related to nerve symptoms, was increased relative to the general population. Detailed statistics are presented in the manuscript. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic nerve injuries may be associated with a notable socioeconomic burden to the patient, including missed work or school, frequent physician visits and procedures, hospital visits, and out-of-pocket costs. Interdisciplinary algorithms recognizing a role for surgical evaluation in patients with chronic neuropathic pain due to underlying nerve injuries would facilitate future research into whether timely surgical intervention may reduce this economic burden.

Evidence-Based Approach to Timing of Nerve Surgery: A Review.

ABSTRACT: Events causing acute stress to the health care system, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, place clinical decisions under increased scrutiny. The priority and timing of surgical procedures are critically evaluated under these conditions, yet the optimal timing of procedures is a key consideration in any clinical setting. There is currently no single article consolidating a large body of current evidence on timing of nerve surgery. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were systematically reviewed for clinical data on nerve repair and reconstruction to define the current understanding of timing and other factors affecting outcomes. Special attention was given to sensory, mixed/motor, nerve compression syndromes, and nerve pain. The data presented in this review may assist surgeons in making sound, evidence-based clinical decisions regarding timing of nerve surgery.

Chronic postoperative complications and donor site morbidity after sural nerve autograft harvest or biopsy.

BACKGROUND: The sural nerve is the most frequently harvested nerve autograft and is most often biopsied in the workup of peripheral neuropathy. While the complication types associated with these two procedures are well known, their clinical significance is poorly understood and there is a paucity of data regarding the complication rates. METHODS: Pubmed search identified studies regarding complications after sural nerve harvest and biopsy. The data was grouped into sensory deficits, chronic pain, sensory symptoms, wound infections, wound complications, other postoperative complications, and complications impacting daily life. The incidence of each complication was calculated, and a chi-square analysis was performed to determine if there were any differences between nerve biopsies and graft harvest with respect to each complication. RESULTS: Twelve studies yielded 478 sural nerve procedures. Sensory deficits occurred at a rate of 92.9%, chronic pain at 19.7%, sensory symptoms at 41.1%, wound infections at 5.7%, noninfectious wound complications at 7.8%, and impact on daily life at 5.0%. The differences in wound infections, sensory symptoms, and impact on daily life between biopsies versus graft excisions were found to reach statistical significance (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Sural nerve excisions can cause chronic postoperative donor-site complications. Given these complications, alternative available mediums for nerve reconstruction should be explored and utilized wherever appropriate. If an alternative medium is unavailable and nerve autograft must be harvested for nerve reconstruction, then patients should be counseled about risks for developing donor site complications that may negatively affect quality of life.

Reconstructive Options for Inferior Alveolar and Lingual Nerve Injuries After Dental and Oral Surgery: An Evidence-Based Review.

PURPOSE: The investigators wanted to evaluate, analyze, and compare the current microsurgical repair modalities (primary repair, autograft, tube conduit, and allograft reconstruction) in achieving functional sensory recovery in inferior alveolar and lingual nerve reconstructions due to injury. METHODS: A literature review was undertaken to identify studies focusing on microsurgical repair of inferior alveolar and lingual nerve injuries. Included studies provided a defined sample size, the reconstruction modality, and functional sensory recovery rates. A Fischer exact test analysis was performed with groups based on the nerve and repair type, which included subgroups of specific nerve gap reconstruction modalities. RESULTS: Twelve studies were analyzed resulting in a sample consisting of 122 lingual nerve and 137 inferior alveolar nerve reconstructions. Among the nerve gap reconstructions for the lingual nerve, processed nerve allografts and autografts were found to be superior in achieving functional sensory recovery over the conduits with P values of 0.0001 and 0.0003, respectively. Among the nerve gap reconstructions for the inferior alveolar nerve, processed nerve allografts and autografts were also found to be superior in achieving functional sensory recovery over the conduits with P values of 0.027 and 0.026, respectively. Overall, nerve gap reconstructions with allografts and autografts for inferior alveolar and lingual nerve reconstruction were superior in achieving functional sensory recovery with a P value of <0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: The data analyzed in this study suggest that primary tension-free repair should be performed in inferior alveolar and lingual nerve reconstructions when possible. If a bridging material is to be used, then processed nerve allografts and autografts are both superior to conduits and noninferior to each other. In addition, allografts do not have the complications related to autograft harvesting such as permanent donor site morbidity. Based on the conclusions drawn from these data, we provide a reproducible operative technique for inferior alveolar and lingual nerve reconstruction.

Diagnostic Criteria for Symptomatic Neuroma.

INTRODUCTION: After nerve injury, disorganized or incomplete nerve regeneration may result in a neuroma. The true incidence of symptomatic neuroma is unknown, and the diagnosis has traditionally been made based on patient history, symptoms, physical examination, and the anatomic location of pain, along with response to diagnostic injection. There are no formally accepted criteria for a diagnosis of neuroma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify articles related to neuroma: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed and Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for all relevant articles pertaining to neuroma. Articles were screened by title and abstract for relevance. If an article was considered potentially relevant, the full article was reviewed. After consideration, 50 articles were included in this systematic review. RESULTS: No previous articles directly addressed diagnostic criteria for symptomatic neuroma. Factors related to neuroma diagnosis gleaned from previous studies include pain and cold intolerance (patient history), positive Tinel sign or diminished 2-point discrimination (physical examination findings), response to diagnostic nerve block, and presence of neuroma on diagnostic imaging (ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging). Based on literature review, the importance and number of references, as well as clinical experience, we propose criteria for diagnosis of symptomatic neuroma. To receive a diagnosis of symptomatic neuroma, patients must have (1) pain with at least 3 qualifying "neuropathic" characteristics, (2) symptoms in a defined neural anatomic distribution, and (3) a history of a nerve injury or suspected nerve injury. In addition, patients must have at least 2 of the following 4 findings: (1) positive Tinel sign on examination at/along suspected nerve injury site, (2) tenderness/pain on examination at/along suspected nerve injury site, (3) positive response to a diagnostic local anesthetic injection, and (4) ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging confirmation of neuroma. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of neuroma is based on a careful history and physical examination and should rely on the proposed criteria for confirmation. These criteria will be helpful in more precisely defining the diagnosis for clinical and research purposes.

Sensory restoration of breast reconstruction - The search for the ideal approach continues.

Contemporary reconstructive modalities focus on breast anatomy and attempt to reconstruct breasts that are soft, of adequate shape, size, and symmetry. However, a functional component, i.e. sensation, has largely been ignored. Flap neurotization addresses this shortcoming. While we are still in search of the ideal surgical technique to achieve this goal, a novel approach that limits nerve harvest to the sensory branch only, thus, minimizing abdominal donor-site morbidity, is presented.

Refinements of nerve repair with connector-assisted coaptation.

Peripheral nerve repair can be very rewarding for both surgeon and patient when expected outcomes are achieved. In many cases, however, the results are suboptimal due to number of possible objective and technical reasons. Although we cannot influence patent's comorbidities, the extent or mechanism of the nerve injury, we may help optimize technical details when aiming towards improved outcomes. While the suture coaptation for primary nerve repair or nerve reconstruction with grafting served as the reconstructive standard for many decades, technical imperfections remain threats to reconstructive goals. Tension, fascicular misalignment generated by over tightening suture coaptation, deeply placed sutures, reactive scarring to foreign material at anastomosis site, may all negatively affect axonal regeneration. As the goal of every nerve repair is to have ideally opposed tension free nerve fascicles, protected from the deleterious effects of the wound bed. The utilization of coaptation aids to overcome the challenges of nerve repair has been suggested as an alternative to the classical suture repair. A review of clinical literature was performed to assess the evidence for this technique and the critical success factors to consider when implementing this technique. Twelve clinical studies met criteria, majority suggesting improved outcomes by the utilization of a coaptation aid. Most commonly reported improvements were improved sensory outcomes, reduced tenderness or pain at the coaptation site and reduced operative time. The current clinical evidence data suggests that utilization of a coaptation aid is a technical innovation to help provide better nerve repair and reconstructive functional outcomes.

Interdisciplinary treatment of post-concussion and post-traumatic headaches.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic headaches following concussion are debilitating and difficult to treat. Commonly employed initial therapeutic modalities include pharmacologic, physical, and psychological interventions. Despite these efforts, a subset of patients with chronic pain remains. Peripheral nerve surgery has never before been reported as an effective treatment for the management of post-concussion headaches. In this study, we report on our early outcomes following peripheral nerve surgery for this novel indication. METHODS: A retrospective review of 28 consecutive patients with post-concussion headaches who underwent occipital nerve surgery was performed. Preoperative and postoperative headache pain was evaluated on visual analog scale (VAS) in 24 patients with at least 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: The average VAS headache pain reduced from 6.4 preoperatively, to 1.4 (P < 0.0001). Twenty-one patients (88%) had a successful outcome of at least a 50% reduction in their VAS following peripheral nerve surgery. Additionally, twelve patients (50%) were pain free at time of final follow-up. There were no surgical complications. CONCLUSIONS: Early results indicate peripheral nerve surgery is a safe and effective new therapy for post-concussion headaches in the properly selected patients, whose chronic pain persists despite initial treatments by a neurologist, specialized in headache management. Future studies should focus on larger patient populations, and examine the long-term durability of outcome. In the meantime, an interdisciplinary approach involving neurologists and a peripheral nerve surgeon is suggested for the care of patients with refractory chronic post-concussion occipital neuralgia and other post-traumatic chronic headaches.

Greater occipital nerve excision for occipital neuralgia refractory to nerve decompression.

BACKGROUND: Patients who undergo occipital nerve decompression for treatment of migraine headaches due to occipital neuralgia have already exhausted medical options for treatment. When surgical decompression fails, it is unknown how best to help these patients. We examine our experience performing greater occipital nerve (GON) excision for pain relief in this select, refractory group of patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review supplemented by a follow-up survey was performed on all patients under the care of the senior author who had undergone GON excision after failing occipital nerve decompression. Headache severity was measured by the migraine headache index (MHI) and disability by the migraine disability assessment. Success rate was considered the percentage of patients who experienced a 50% or greater reduction in MHI at final follow-up. RESULTS: Seventy-one of 108 patients responded to the follow-up survey and were included in the study. Average follow-up was 33 months. The success rate of surgery was 70.4%; 41% of patients showed a 90% or greater decrease in MHI. The MHI changed, on average, from 146 to 49, for an average reduction of 63% (P < 0.001). Migraine disability assessment scores decreased by an average of 49% (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that a diagnosis of cervicogenic headache was associated with failure of surgery. The most common adverse effect was bothersome numbness or hypersensitivity in the denervated area, occurring in up to 31% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Excision of the GON is a valid option for pain relief in patients with occipital headaches refractory to both medical treatment and surgical decompression. Potential risks include failure in patients with cervicogenic headache and hypersensitivity of the denervated area. To provide the best outcome to these patients who have failed all previous medical and surgical treatments, a multidisciplinary team approach remains critical.

A systematic review of peripheral nerve interventional treatments for chronic headaches.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically compare the outcomes of different types of interventional procedures offered for the treatment of headaches and targeted toward peripheral nerves based on available published literature. BACKGROUND: Multiple procedural modalities targeted at peripheral nerves are being offered to patients for the treatment of chronic headaches. However, few resources exist to compare the effectiveness of these modalities. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to compare the published outcomes and effectiveness of peripheral nerve surgery, radiofrequency (RF) therapy, and peripheral nerve stimulators for chronic headaches, migraines, and occipital neuralgia. METHODS: A broad literature search of the MEDLINE and CENTRAL (Cochrane) databases was undertaken. Relevant studies were selected by 2 independent reviewers and these results were narrowed further by the application of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were assessed for quality, and data were extracted regarding study characteristics (study type, level of evidence, type of intervention, and number of patients) and objective outcomes (success rate, length of follow-up, and complications). Pooled analysis was performed to compare success rates and complications between modality types. RESULTS: Of an initial 250 search results, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 articles studied nerve decompression, 9 studied peripheral nerve stimulation, and 3 studied RF intervention. When study populations and results were pooled, a total of 1253 patients had undergone nerve decompression with an 86% success rate, 184 patients were treated by nerve stimulation with a 68% success rate, and 131 patients were treated by RF with a 55% success rate. When compared to one another, these success rates were all statistically significantly different. Neither nerve decompression nor RF reported complications requiring a return to the operating room, whereas implantable nerve stimulators had a 31.5% rate of such complications. Minor complication rates were similar among all 3 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Of the 3 most commonly encountered interventional procedures for chronic headaches, peripheral nerve surgery via decompression of involved peripheral nerves has been the best-studied modality in terms of total number of studies, level of evidence of published studies, and length of follow-up. Reported success rates for nerve decompression or excision tend to be higher than those for peripheral nerve stimulation or for RF, although poor study quantity and quality prohibit an accurate comparative analysis. Of the 3 procedures, peripheral nerve stimulator implantation was associated with the greatest number of complications. Although peripheral nerve surgery seems to be the interventional treatment modality that is currently best supported by the literature, better controlled and normalized high-quality studies will help to better define the specific roles for each type of intervention.

Correlating patient-reported outcomes and ambulation success following microsurgical lower extremity reconstruction in comorbid patients.

INTRODUCTION: Microsurgical lower extremity flap reconstruction provides a valuable option for soft tissue reconstruction in comorbid patients. Limb salvage with flap reconstruction can result in limb length preservation. Despite this, few studies have examined the impact of salvage on patient-centered metrics in this cohort of patients. Therefore, we investigated quality of life and patient satisfaction following microsurgical lower extremity reconstruction in this high-risk patient population. Factors that resulted in improved patient-centered outcomes were also identified. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who had lower extremity free flap reconstruction (FFR) following lower extremity wounds. High-risk patients were identified as having multiple comorbidities and chronic wounds. Patients with traumatic wounds were excluded from analysis. Quality of life was evaluated with the Short Form-12 (SF-12) validated survey. Phone interviews were conducted for survey evaluations. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2010, 57 patients had lower extremity flap reconstruction that met the inclusion criteria. Average follow-up was 236.6 weeks (range, 111-461). Comorbidities included diabetes (36%), PVD (24.6%), and ESRD (7%). Limb length preservation and ambulation occurred in 82.5% (47/57). Revisional surgery occurred in 33.3% (19/57). Survey response rate was 63%. Average SF-12 PCS and MCS scores were 44.9 and 59.8 for patients able to achieve ambulation and 27.6 and 61.2 for nonambulatory patients. CONCLUSIONS: Microsurgical flap reconstruction is a valuable reconstructive option in high-risk patients. Quality of life is comparable with a normalized population if limb salvage is successful. Quality of life is decreased significantly when failure to ambulate occurs in this patient cohort.

Nerve Injuries in Aesthetic Breast Surgery: Systematic Review and Treatment Options.

BACKGROUND: The risk of nerve injuries in aesthetic breast surgery has not been well explored. OBJECTIVES: The authors conducted a systematic review to provide evidence-based information on the incidence and treatment of nerve injuries resulting from aesthetic breast surgery. METHODS: A broad literature search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was undertaken to identify studies in which nerve injury occurred after breast augmentation or mastopexy. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were established before the search was performed. RESULTS: The initial 4806 citations were narrowed by topic, title, and abstract to 53 articles. After full-text review, 36 studies were included. The risk of any nerve injury after breast augmentation ranged from 13.57% to 15.44%. Specific nerve injury rates were calculated for the intercostal cutaneous nerves, branches to the nipple-areola complex, intercostobrachial nerve, long thoracic nerve, and brachial plexus. Also calculated were the total estimated risks of chronic pain, hyperesthesia, hypoesthesia, and numbness. The meta-analysis showed no associations between the rates of breast nerve injury or sensation change and implant size, incision type, or implant position in patients who underwent breast augmentation. The data were insufficient to determine rates of nerve injury in mastopexy. CONCLUSIONS: The possibility of nerve injury, sensation change, or chronic pain with breast augmentation is real, and estimating the incidences of these conditions is useful to both patients and surgeons. Optimizing patient outcomes requires timely treatment by a multidisciplinary team and may include peripheral nerve surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Abdominoplasty-related nerve injuries: systematic review and treatment options.

BACKGROUND: Abdominoplasty is a common cosmetic procedure; nerve injury is an underexplored risk of the procedure. OBJECTIVE: The authors review existing literature to examine the incidence and treatment of nerve injuries after abdominoplasty procedures and provide a treatment algorithm based on their results. METHODS: A search of the literature on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was undertaken. After full-text review, 23 articles met our criteria. Any mentions of nerve injury, including references to a lack of nerve injury, were documented. All data were pooled for analysis. From our combined data, we calculated the risks of postabdominoplasty nerve injury by dividing the total number of nerve injuries by the total number of patients. RESULTS: Pooled data showed that 1.94% of patients sustained specific nerve injury, and 1.02% of patients sustained permanent injury after abdominoplasty. In addition, 7.67% experienced decreased sensation, 1.07% reported chronic pain, and 0.44% reported temporary weakness or paralysis. Nerves directly injured were the lateral femoral cutaneous (1.36% of patients) and iliohypogastric (0.10%) nerves. Nerves injured from surgical positioning were the brachial plexus (0.10%), musculocutaneous (0.10%), radial (0.05%), sciatic (0.19%), and common peroneal (0.05%) nerves. CONCLUSIONS: Although our results showed a low incidence of postabdominoplasty nerve injury, the lasting impact on affected patients' quality of life can be significant. Appropriate and timely treatment by a multidisciplinary team is critical to optimize patient outcomes. Better reporting of nerve injuries in future studies of abdominoplasty will provide more accurate information about the incidence and consequences of these injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Peripheral nerve surgery for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia.

Postherpetic neuralgia is a chronic pain condition that develops in some patients after the resolution of herpes zoster, and has no medical cure. Medications used to treat chronic pain do not hasten resolution of the disorder and may impair function. In this brief case report, we describe our experience with excision and implantation to muscle of peripheral sensory nerves in the affected dermatomes as a novel surgical treatment to reduce pain and improve quality of life for patients with this condition. Of the 3 treated patients, all had resolution of chronic pain after surgery. It is concluded that peripheral nerve surgery offers a promising option to improve pain and quality of life in postherpetic neuralgia patients, without affecting systemic functioning.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Provocative Testing in Peripheral Nerve Injury and Recovery.

Background Peripheral nerve function is often difficult to assess given the highly variable presentation and subjective patient experience of nerve injury. If nerve assessment is incomplete or inaccurate, inappropriate diagnosis and subsequent treatment may result in permanent dysfunction. Objective As our understanding of nerve repair and generation evolves, so have tools for evaluating peripheral nerve function, recovery, and nerve-related impact on the quality of life. Provocative testing is often used in the clinic to identify peripheral nerve dysfunction. Patient-reported outcome forms provide insights regarding the effect of nerve dysfunction on daily activities and quality of life. Methods We performed a review of the literature using a comprehensive combination of keywords and search algorithms to determine the clinical utility of different provocative tests and patient-reported outcomes measures in a variety of contexts, both pre- and postoperatively. Results This review may serve as a valuable resource for surgeons determining the appropriate provocative testing tools and patient-reported outcomes forms to monitor nerve function both pre- and postoperatively. Conclusion As treatments for peripheral nerve injury and dysfunction continue to improve, identifying the most appropriate measures of success may ultimately lead to improved patient outcomes.

Postoperative headache following acoustic neuroma resection: occipital nerve injuries are associated with a treatable occipital neuralgia.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that occipital nerve injury is associated with chronic postoperative headache in patients who have undergone acoustic neuroma excision and to determine whether occipital nerve excision is an effective treatment for these headaches. BACKGROUND: Few previous reports have discussed the role of occipital nerve injury in the pathogenesis of the postoperative headache noted to commonly occur following the retrosigmoid approach to acoustic neuroma resection. No studies have supported a direct etiologic link between the two. The authors report on a series of acoustic neuroma patients with postoperative headache presenting as occipital neuralgia who were found to have occipital nerve injuries and were treated for chronic headache by excision of the injured nerves. METHODS: Records were reviewed to identify patients who had undergone surgical excision of the greater and lesser occipital nerves for refractory chronic postoperative headache following acoustic neuroma resection. Primary outcomes examined were change in migraine headache index, change in number of pain medications used, continued use of narcotics, patient satisfaction, and change in quality of life. Follow-up was in clinic and via telephone interview. RESULTS: Seven patients underwent excision of the greater and lesser occipital nerves. All met diagnostic criteria for occipital neuralgia and failed conservative management. Six of 7 patients experienced pain reduction of greater than 80% on the migraine index. Average pain medication use decreased from 6 to 2 per patient; 3 of 5 patients achieved independence from narcotics. Six patients experienced 80% or greater improvement in quality of life at an average follow-up of 32 months. There was one treatment failure. Occipital nerve neuroma or nerve entrapment was identified during surgery in all cases where treatment was successful but not in the treatment failure. CONCLUSION: In contradistinction to previous reports, we have identified a subset of patients in whom the syndrome of postoperative headache appears directly related to the presence of occipital nerve injuries. In patients with postoperative headache meeting diagnostic criteria for occipital neuralgia, occipital nerve excision appears to provide relief of the headache syndrome and meaningful improvement in quality of life. Further studies are needed to confirm these results and to determine whether occipital nerve injury may present as headache types other than occipital neuralgia. These findings suggest that patients presenting with chronic postoperative headache should be screened for the presence of surgically treatable occipital nerve injuries.

Innovative treatment of peripheral nerve injuries: combined reconstructive concepts.

BACKGROUND: Although autografts are the gold standard for failed primary nerve repairs, they result in donor-site morbidity. Nerve conduits and decellularized allografts are a novel solution for improved functional outcomes and decreased donor-site morbidity. Unfortunately, previous reconstructive algorithms have not included the use of decellularized allograft nerve segments, either for repair of the primary injury or reconstruction of the autograft donor site. To identify the optimal sequence of techniques and resources, we reviewed our cases of upper extremity peripheral nerve reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on consecutive patients who underwent upper extremity nerve reconstruction between August 2003 and September 2009. Outcomes were evaluated with the QuickDASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand) questionnaire. Grouped outcome results were evaluated with analysis of variance analysis. A literature review of available options for nerve reconstruction was performed. RESULTS: In all, 47 patients were identified. Complete demographic/injury data were obtained in 41 patients with 54 discrete nerve repairs: 8 were repaired primarily, 27 with nerve conduits, 8 with allografts, and 11 with autografts. Time from injury to repair averaged 22.3 ± 38.3 weeks, with 12 repairs occurring immediately after tumor resection. Average QuickDASH score was 23.2 ± 19.8. An analysis of variance between repair-type outcomes revealed a P value of 0.58, indicating no outcome difference when each repair was applied for an appropriate gap. No comparable algorithm was identified in the literature analyzing the use of allograft in conjunction with conduit and autografts. CONCLUSION: To restore maximal target-organ function with minimal donor-site morbidity, we have created an algorithm based on evidence for nerve reconstruction using allograft, conduit, and autologous donor nerve. Based on our clinical outcomes, despite small sample study, the adoption of the proposed algorithm may help provide uniform outcomes for a given technique, with minimal patient morbidity. Individualized reconstructive technique, based not only on nerve gap size but also on functional importance and the anatomical level of the nerve injury are important variables to consider for optimal outcome.

Common nerve decompressions of the upper extremity: reliable exposure using shorter incisions.

UNLABELLED: Considering that several different specialties perform nerve decompressions in the upper extremity, universal technical standards do not exist. Many of these procedures are performed via incisions that are made unnecessarily long to achieve adequate exposure of the nerves and their known anatomical compression points. The purpose of this article is to introduce reproducible techniques that reliably allow the necessary anatomical exposure while minimizing the length of required skin incisions. METHODS: The senior author's surgical approach to the most common nerve compression syndromes of the upper extremity is presented in detail. Typical incision lengths and surgical exposure are demonstrated photographically. The safety of using this technique is examined by review of the medical records of all patients undergoing this procedure from 2003 to 2011, looking for technical complications such as unintentional damage to nerves or adjacent structures. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty consecutive cases were identified in which the described techniques were used to release known anatomical compression points of the upper extremity nerves, including 161 decompressions of the ulnar nerve at the elbow, 37 decompressions of the anterior interosseous nerve and 45 of the posterior interosseous nerve in the proximal forearm, and 77 decompressions of the radial sensory nerve in the distal forearm. Typical incision lengths we used for these procedures were 5 cm for the ulnar nerve, 4.5 cm for the anterior interosseous nerve, 4 cm for the posterior interosseous nerve, and 3 cm for the radial sensory nerve. Review of medical records revealed no incidences of unintentional injury to nerves or adjacent important structures. Functional and neurological recovery outcomes were not assessed, as those would be the subject of subsequent studies. CONCLUSIONS: Known anatomical compression points can be reliably accessed and decompressed for the treatment of all common upper extremity nerve compression syndromes using minimized skin incisions and the techniques presented in this article. With appropriate knowledge of anatomy, this can be performed without expensive equipment or any additional risk of injury to the patient, making classically described longer incisions unnecessarily morbid.

Factors associated with failed hardware salvage in high-risk patients after microsurgical lower extremity reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Lower extremity hardware salvage remains challenging in patients with complex comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with failed hardware salvage after microsurgical lower extremity reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective, institutional review board-approved review was performed of patients who underwent lower extremity hardware salvage via free tissue transfer from 2004 to 2010. Outcomes were binarized into successful versus failed hardware salvage, with failure defined as nonelective removal. Patient demographics, wound characteristics, microbiology, and pathology were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients underwent lower extremity hardware salvage via free tissue transfer, with an average follow-up of 3.2 years (range, 0.3-7.0 years). Of these patients, 15 (44.1%) had successful hardware salvage and 19 (55.9%) required hardware removal. By demographics, a higher prevalence of multiple comorbidities was found in patients with failed hardware salvage. Wound characteristics revealed a significantly longer time to hardware coverage and longer duration of intravenous antibiotics in failed versus successful hardware salvage patients (38.9 vs 9.3 weeks, P=0.02; 6.5 vs 4.1 weeks, P=0.03, respectively). Initial wound cultures demonstrated a significantly higher frequency of positive growth in patients with failed versus successful hardware salvage (100.0% vs 57.1%, P=0.003). Initial pathology revealed a borderline-significantly higher frequency of chronic osteomyelitis in failed versus successful salvage patients (66.7% vs 33.3%, P=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective review of microsurgical lower extremity reconstruction, factors associated with failed hardware salvage included multiple comorbidities, longer time to hardware coverage, increased duration of intravenous antibiotics, positive initial wound cultures, and chronic osteomyelitis on initial pathology.

Minimally invasive peripheral nerve surgery: peroneal nerve neurolysis.

BACKGROUND: Both patients and surgeons recognize the value of procedures that minimize scarring and tissue dissection. No previous reports have described a minimally invasive technique for peroneal nerve neurolysis, or evaluated its safety. METHODS: The senior author's technique for a minimally invasive approach to neurolysis of the common, superficial, and deep peroneal nerves is presented. Safety of the technique was determined by review of records of all patients undergoing this procedure from 2003-2011, looking for major complications. RESULTS: Using the minimally invasive approach to peroneal nerve neurolysis, average skin incision size is 3.5 cm for the common peroneal nerve, 4 cm for the superficial peroneal nerve, and 2.5 cm for the deep peroneal nerve. In 400 patients undergoing 679 total procedures, there were no nerve injuries, postoperative neuromas, or adjacent structures harmed. CONCLUSIONS: Peroneal nerve neurolysis can be accomplished safely and effectively via a minimal skin incision, improving aesthetic results and decreasing possible scar-related complications.