4.5 Review

Collagen Nerve Conduits and Processed Nerve Allografts for the Reconstruction of Digital Nerve Gaps: A Single-Institution Case Series and Review of the Literature

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 127, 期 -, 页码 E1176-E1184

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.04.087

关键词

Collagen conduit; Digital nerve; Peripheral nerve; Processed nerve allograft

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: A single-institution case series is reported and a review of the literature on the outcomes of digital nerve gap reconstruction with the NeuraGen type 1 collagen nerve conduit (Integra Life Sciences, Plainsboro New Jersey, USA) and the Avance Nerve Graft (Axogen Inc., Alachua, Florida, USA) is presented. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were included with a minimal follow-up of 12 months. Primary outcome was postoperative sensory recovery measured by static 2-point discrimination test or the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test. Secondary outcome measurements were perioperative or postoperative complications. Final outcome data were stratified to grade results as excellent, good, or poor. RESULTS: The mean nerve gap length was 14 +/- 4.9 mm for the collagen conduits versus 18.4 +/- 9.3 for nerve allografts. After 12 months, outcomes were graded as excellent sensory recovery in 48% of the collagen conduit repairs and 39% of the nerve allografts (P = 0.608), good in 26% of the conduits and 55% of the allografts (P = 0.074), and poor in 26% of the conduits versus 6% of the allografts (P = 0.091). One neuroma and 1 infection were reported. Graft rejection or extrusion was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Nerve conduits and processed nerve allografts offer convenient off-the-shelf options for digital nerve gap repair. Both techniques offer effective means of reconstructing a digital nerve gap <2.5 cm at a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Future prospective randomized large sample size studies comparing nerve conduits with allografts are needed to perform subgroup analyses and to define their exact role in digital nerve injuries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据