Clinical outcomes after primary repair for thumb ulnar collateral ligament ruptures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is no consensus on the best surgical technique for treating thumb ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) ruptures. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates which primary repair technique and postoperative immobilization protocol result in the best clinical outcomes. A literature search was conducted in Embase, Medline ALL Ovid, Web of Science Core Selection and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Pain, stability, tip pinch strength, key pinch strength, grip strength, return to work and metacarpophalangeal joint range of motion were collected as postoperative outcomes. In total, 29 studies were included. All surgical techniques resulted in satisfactory clinical outcomes, with no significant differences between bone anchor reinsertion, suture fixation, K-wire fixation and a combination of techniques. K-wire immobilization resulted in worse postoperative pain, but similar stability compared to immobilization without a K-wire. Clinical outcomes after thumb UCL repair are excellent, with no differences in clinical outcomes noted among surgical techniques.

Incision techniques for trigger thumb release: a comparison of outcomes of four types of skin incision.

Although trigger thumb release is commonly performed, there is no consensus on the optimal skin incision. This study aimed to compare outcomes of four incision techniques, including V-shaped, oblique, transverse and longitudinal incisions. Outcomes included the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, satisfaction with the treatment and postoperative complications. The results of 875 patients who underwent trigger thumb release were assessed. All groups demonstrated improvement in self-reported hand function (range of 10-14 points), pain (25-27 points) and aesthetics (4-7 points) from baseline to 3 months postoperatively with no differences between incision techniques. Of the patients, 76% reported good or excellent satisfaction with the outcome of treatment. Satisfaction and complication rates of the different incision techniques were similar. These findings imply that there is no clear benefit of one type of incision over another for trigger thumb release, suggesting that surgeons may use the technique of their preference.Level of evidence: III.

Sensory nerve transfers in the upper limb after peripheral nerve injury: a scoping review.

Nerve transfer for motor nerve paralysis is an established technique for treating complex nerve injuries. However, nerve transfer for sensory reconstruction has not been widely used, and published research on this topic is limited compared to motor nerve transfer. The indications and outcomes of nerve transfer for the restoration of sensory function remain unproven. This scoping review examines the indications, outcomes and complications of sensory nerve transfer. In total, 22 studies were included; the major finding is that distal sensory nerve transfers are more successful than proximal ones in succeeding protective sensation. Although the risk of extension of the sensory deficit with donor site loss and morbidity from neuromas remain a barrier to wider adoption, these complications were not reported in the review. Further, the scarcity of studies and small patient series limit the ability to determine sensory nerve transfer success. However, sensory restoration remains an opportunity for surgeons to pursue.Level of evidence: II.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of fibrin glue in peripheral nerve repair: Can we just glue it?

BACKGROUND: Within the field of peripheral nerve surgery, the use of fibrin glue as an alternative to conventional microsurgical suture repair is becoming increasingly popular. Advantages of fibrin glue for nerve reconstruction include technical ease of use, less tissue manipulation, and shorter operation times. Although fibrin glue seems a promising alternative to conventional microsurgical repair, further insight into the outcomes of nerve recovery is essential. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current literature on the use of fibrin glue for peripheral nerve repair and compare these results with outcomes following conventional suture repair. METHODS: A systematic search in Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases was performed. The search included animal, cadaveric, and human studies assessing outcomes following peripheral nerve repair using fibrin glue. Data on outcomes were subdivided into functional outcomes, electrophysiology, histopathology, biomechanical outcomes, and operation times. We calculated standardized mean differences and combined these in a random effects model to estimate the overall effect. RESULTS: From a total of 2057 references, 37 animal, two cadaveric, and four human studies were included. Fibrin glue repairs resulted in similar functional and electrophysiology outcomes and shorter operation times than suture repairs. However, fibrin glue alone resulted in lower strength and more dehiscence. No dehiscence was reported when fibrin glue was combined with one or two sutures. Yet, we also found that methodological details were poorly reported in animal studies, resulting in an unclear risk of bias. This should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that nerve regeneration may be similar in fibrin glue repairs and suture repairs. Combining fibrin glue with one or two positional sutures allows for a precise realignment of the nerve fibers and seems to provide sufficient strength to prevent dehiscence.