Evaluation of Processed Nerve Allograft in Peripheral Nerve Surgery: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

Peripheral nerve injuries cause substantial problems when not treated properly. A specific problem is reconstruction of nerve defects, which can be treated in different ways. This study aimed to systematically review whether processed nerve allograft (PNA) is justified in reconstruction of a nerve defect in patients after posttraumatic or iatrogenic peripheral nerve injury and to compare PNA with other established methods. Methods: A systematic review with a focused question, PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome) and constraints, was performed. A structured literature search, including several databases, was done to evaluate the existing evidence for outcomes and postoperative complications related to PNA. The certainty of evidence was classified according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Results: No conclusions, concerning differences in outcome of nerve reconstruction using PNA compared with the use of nerve autograft or conduits, could be drawn. The level of certainty for all evaluated outcomes was very low (⊕◯◯◯). Most published studies lack a control group to patients treated with PNA; being only descriptive, making it difficult to compare PNA with established methods without substantial risk of bias. For studies including a control group, the scientific evidence was of very low certainty, due to a low number of included patients, and large, undefined loss of patients during follow-up, rendering a high risk of bias. Finally, the authors often had financial disclosures. Conclusion: Properly conducted randomized controlled trial studies on the use of PNA in reconstruction of peripheral nerve injuries are needed to establish recommendations in clinical practice.

Subjective outcome related to donor site morbidity after sural nerve graft harvesting: a survey in 41 patients.

BACKGROUND: The sural nerve is the most commonly used nerve for grafting severe nerve defects. Our aim was to evaluate subjective outcome in the lower leg after harvesting the sural nerve for grafting nerve defects. METHODS: Forty-six patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire to describe symptoms from leg or foot, where the sural nerve has been harvested to reconstruct an injured major nerve trunk. The questionnaire, previously used in patients going through a nerve biopsy, consists of questions about loss of sensation, pain, cold intolerance, allodynia and present problems from the foot. The survey also contained questions (visual analogue scales; VAS) about disability from the reconstructed nerve trunk. RESULTS: Forty-one out of 46 patients replied [35 males/6 females; age at reconstruction 23.0 years (10-72); median (min-max), reconstruction done 12 (1.2-39) years ago]. In most patients [37/41 cases (90%)], the sural nerve graft was used to reconstruct an injured nerve trunk in the upper extremity, mainly the median nerve [19/41 (46%)].In 38/41 patients, loss of sensation, to a variable extent, in the skin area innervated by the sural nerve was noted. These problems persisted at follow up, but 19/41 noted that this area of sensory deficit had decreased over time. Few patients had pain and less than 1/3 had cold intolerance. Allodynia was present in half of the patients, but the majority of them considered that they had no or only slight problems from their foot. None of the patients in the study required painkillers. Eighty eight per cent would accept an additional sural nerve graft procedure if another nerve reconstruction procedure is necessary in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Harvesting of the sural nerve for reconstruction nerve injuries results in mild residual symptoms similar to those seen after a nerve biopsy; although nerve biopsy patients are less prone to undergo an additional biopsy.

Cerebral changes after injury to the median nerve: a long-term follow up.

Injury to the peripheral nerves in the upper extremity results in changes in the nerve, and at multiple sites throughout the central nervous system (CNS). We studied the long-term effects of an injury to the median nerve in the forearm with a focus on changes in the CNS. Four patients with isolated injuries of the median nerve in their 20s were examined a mean of 14 years after the injury. Cortical activation was monitored during tactile stimulation of the fingers of the injured and healthy hand using functional magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla. The neurophysiological state and clinical outcome were also examined. Activation in the primary somatosensory cortex was substantially larger during tactile stimulation of the injured hand than with stimulation of the uninjured hand. We also saw a redistribution of hemispheric dominance. Stimulation of the injured median nerve resulted in a substantially increased dominance of the contralateral hemisphere. However, stimulation of the healthy ulnar nerve resulted in a decreased dominance of the contralateral hemisphere. Neurophysiology showed low sensory amplitudes, velocity, and increased motor latency in the injured nerve. Clinically there were abnormalities predominately in the sensory domain. However, there was an overall improved mean result compared with a five year follow-up in the same subjects. The cortical changes could be the result of cortical reorganisation after a changed afferent signal pattern from the injured nerve. Even though the clinical function improved over time it did not return to normal, and neither did the cortical response.