An effective technique in nerve defect repair: Analysis of sliding epineural tube graft technique and comparison with autologous nerve graft and turn-over epineural tube graft techniques

Murat Kara, Uğur Koçer, Ramazan Arslan, Koray Gürsoy, Seçil Vural, Ayşegül Fırat
{"title":"An effective technique in nerve defect repair: Analysis of sliding epineural tube graft technique and comparison with autologous nerve graft and turn-over epineural tube graft techniques","authors":"Murat Kara, Uğur Koçer, Ramazan Arslan, Koray Gürsoy, Seçil Vural, Ayşegül Fırat","doi":"10.32552/2023.actamedica.924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Autologous nerve graft (ANG) is the standard of care in the reconstruction of nerve gaps. However, scarification of a donor nerve, donor-site complications (wound complications, sensory dysfunction, neuroma, etc.) and unpredictable results lead surgeons to search for alternative techniques. Epineural tube graft (ETG) is a good option in the repair of nerve gaps. At this point, the present study aims to analyze the utility of the sliding epineural tube graft (SETG)technique in the reconstruction of nerve gaps. Materials and Methods: Thirty Wistar albino rats were divided into five groups according to the repair technique of a 7 mm nerve defect created on the right sciatic nerve. In Group 1 the defect was left unrepaired as a negative control group. The defect was repaired with ANG in Group 2, with turn-over ETG (TETG) in Group 3, with one-directional SETG (O-SETG) in Group 4 and with bi-directional SETG (B-SETG) in Group 5. On the 12th week of the experiment, electrophysiologic, gross macroscopic and microscopic evaluation of muscle function and microscopic assessments of muscle and nerve samples were performed. The left limb and proximal nerve segment of the defect area were used as the control side. Results: Electrophysiologic, macroscopic (wet muscle weight) and microscopic (axonal count, muscle fiber thickness was superior in the ANG group compared with TETG and SETG techniques. B-SETG showed poor results in all of the aforementioned findings. TETG and O-SETG techniques showed similar neuromuscular functions. Conclusion: Although the ANG technique has some disadvantages depending on the sacrification of a donor nerve and donor side, it has significantly superior reconstructive outcomes compared to ETG techniques. However, since the ETG techniques provide acceptable results, they should be in surgeons’ treatment repertoire because of the unique features of the microsurgical intervention.","PeriodicalId":7100,"journal":{"name":"Acta Medica","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32552/2023.actamedica.924","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Autologous nerve graft (ANG) is the standard of care in the reconstruction of nerve gaps. However, scarification of a donor nerve, donor-site complications (wound complications, sensory dysfunction, neuroma, etc.) and unpredictable results lead surgeons to search for alternative techniques. Epineural tube graft (ETG) is a good option in the repair of nerve gaps. At this point, the present study aims to analyze the utility of the sliding epineural tube graft (SETG)technique in the reconstruction of nerve gaps. Materials and Methods: Thirty Wistar albino rats were divided into five groups according to the repair technique of a 7 mm nerve defect created on the right sciatic nerve. In Group 1 the defect was left unrepaired as a negative control group. The defect was repaired with ANG in Group 2, with turn-over ETG (TETG) in Group 3, with one-directional SETG (O-SETG) in Group 4 and with bi-directional SETG (B-SETG) in Group 5. On the 12th week of the experiment, electrophysiologic, gross macroscopic and microscopic evaluation of muscle function and microscopic assessments of muscle and nerve samples were performed. The left limb and proximal nerve segment of the defect area were used as the control side. Results: Electrophysiologic, macroscopic (wet muscle weight) and microscopic (axonal count, muscle fiber thickness was superior in the ANG group compared with TETG and SETG techniques. B-SETG showed poor results in all of the aforementioned findings. TETG and O-SETG techniques showed similar neuromuscular functions. Conclusion: Although the ANG technique has some disadvantages depending on the sacrification of a donor nerve and donor side, it has significantly superior reconstructive outcomes compared to ETG techniques. However, since the ETG techniques provide acceptable results, they should be in surgeons’ treatment repertoire because of the unique features of the microsurgical intervention.
一种有效的神经缺损修复技术:滑动神经管移植技术的分析及与自体神经移植和翻转神经管移植技术的比较
目的:自体神经移植是神经缺损重建的标准治疗方法。然而,供体神经的割伤,供体部位并发症(伤口并发症,感觉功能障碍,神经瘤等)和不可预测的结果导致外科医生寻找替代技术。神经外管移植是修复神经缺损的良好选择。在这一点上,本研究旨在分析滑动神经管移植物(SETG)技术在神经间隙重建中的应用。材料与方法:30只Wistar白化大鼠按右侧坐骨神经缺损7 mm的修复方法分为5组。组1缺损不修复,作为阴性对照组。第2组采用ANG修复,第3组采用翻转ETG (TETG)修复,第4组采用单向SETG (O-SETG)修复,第5组采用双向SETG (B-SETG)修复。实验第12周进行肌肉功能电生理、大体宏观和微观评价以及肌肉和神经样本的微观评价。以左肢体及缺损区近端神经段为对照。结果:与TETG和SETG技术相比,ANG组的电生理、宏观(湿肌重)和微观(轴突计数)、肌纤维厚度均优于TETG和SETG技术。B-SETG在上述所有发现中都表现不佳。TETG和O-SETG显示相似的神经肌肉功能。结论:尽管ANG技术在牺牲供神经和供侧方面存在一定的缺点,但与ETG技术相比,其重建效果明显优于ETG技术。然而,由于ETG技术提供了可接受的结果,由于显微外科干预的独特性,它们应该被纳入外科医生的治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信