Secondary Ulnar Nerve Reconstruction of High Ulnar Nerve Injuries: A Comparative Study of Sural Grafting and Anterior Interosseous Nerve Transfer.

IF 1.8 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Ali Dehghan Marvast, Mohsen Aliakbari, Amir Mohammad Monzavi, Ashkan Salehi, Mohammad Shahsavan
{"title":"Secondary Ulnar Nerve Reconstruction of High Ulnar Nerve Injuries: A Comparative Study of Sural Grafting and Anterior Interosseous Nerve Transfer.","authors":"Ali Dehghan Marvast, Mohsen Aliakbari, Amir Mohammad Monzavi, Ashkan Salehi, Mohammad Shahsavan","doi":"10.22038/ABJS.2024.83645.3806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>High ulnar nerve injuries often cause severe functional impairment, and the best secondary repair method remains debated. This study compared the effectiveness of sural nerve grafting and anterior interosseous nerve (AIN) transfer following failed primary ulnar nerve repairs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included 42 patients with isolated high ulnar nerve injuries who required secondary surgical intervention. Patients were allocated to either the sural nerve grafting (n = 23) or AIN transfer (n = 19) group based on predefined clinical criteria. Motor and sensory functions were assessed using the British Medical Research Council (BMRC) grading system and a two-point discrimination (2PD) test. Grip and pinch strength were measured, and functional recovery was evaluated using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The AIN transfer group exhibited significantly superior motor recovery, with 68.5% of patients achieving BMRC grades M4-M5, compared to only 17.4% in the sural grafting group (P = 0.03). Sensory recovery was also markedly better in the AIN group, with a higher proportion of patients reaching BMRC sensory grades S3-S4 (P = 0.04). Additionally, the AIN transfer group demonstrated significantly greater grip strength (30.1 ± 6.1 kg vs. 24.3 ± 5.2 kg; P = 0.03) and pinch strength (7.2 ± 1.5 kg vs. 5.8 ± 1.3 kg; P = 0.04). Improvement in DASH scores was more substantial in the AIN group (-26.6 ± 5.7 vs. -14.6 ± 4.3; P = 0.02), indicating better functional recovery. Although the AIN group showed a trend toward improved 2PD, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.18).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AIN transfer provides superior outcomes compared to sural nerve grafting for the secondary repair of high ulnar nerve injuries, demonstrating significantly enhanced motor and sensory recovery, grip and pinch strength, and overall functional improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":46704,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","volume":"13 6","pages":"349-358"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12238858/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2024.83645.3806","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: High ulnar nerve injuries often cause severe functional impairment, and the best secondary repair method remains debated. This study compared the effectiveness of sural nerve grafting and anterior interosseous nerve (AIN) transfer following failed primary ulnar nerve repairs.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 42 patients with isolated high ulnar nerve injuries who required secondary surgical intervention. Patients were allocated to either the sural nerve grafting (n = 23) or AIN transfer (n = 19) group based on predefined clinical criteria. Motor and sensory functions were assessed using the British Medical Research Council (BMRC) grading system and a two-point discrimination (2PD) test. Grip and pinch strength were measured, and functional recovery was evaluated using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire.

Results: The AIN transfer group exhibited significantly superior motor recovery, with 68.5% of patients achieving BMRC grades M4-M5, compared to only 17.4% in the sural grafting group (P = 0.03). Sensory recovery was also markedly better in the AIN group, with a higher proportion of patients reaching BMRC sensory grades S3-S4 (P = 0.04). Additionally, the AIN transfer group demonstrated significantly greater grip strength (30.1 ± 6.1 kg vs. 24.3 ± 5.2 kg; P = 0.03) and pinch strength (7.2 ± 1.5 kg vs. 5.8 ± 1.3 kg; P = 0.04). Improvement in DASH scores was more substantial in the AIN group (-26.6 ± 5.7 vs. -14.6 ± 4.3; P = 0.02), indicating better functional recovery. Although the AIN group showed a trend toward improved 2PD, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.18).

Conclusion: AIN transfer provides superior outcomes compared to sural nerve grafting for the secondary repair of high ulnar nerve injuries, demonstrating significantly enhanced motor and sensory recovery, grip and pinch strength, and overall functional improvement.

尺神经高位损伤继发尺神经重建:腓肠植骨与前骨间神经移植的比较研究。
目的:尺神经高位损伤常引起严重的功能损害,最佳的二次修复方法仍有争议。本研究比较了腓肠神经移植和骨间前神经(AIN)移植在原发性尺神经修复失败后的疗效。方法:本回顾性队列研究包括42例需要二次手术治疗的孤立性尺神经高位损伤患者。根据预先设定的临床标准,将患者分为腓肠神经移植组(n = 23)和AIN转移组(n = 19)。运动和感觉功能采用英国医学研究委员会(BMRC)分级系统和两点辨别(2PD)测试进行评估。测量握力和捏力,并使用手臂、肩膀和手的残疾(DASH)问卷评估功能恢复情况。结果:AIN转移组表现出显著的运动恢复,68.5%的患者达到BMRC等级M4-M5,而腓肠移植组仅为17.4% (P = 0.03)。AIN组的感觉恢复也明显更好,达到BMRC感觉分级S3-S4的患者比例更高(P = 0.04)。此外,AIN转移组表现出更大的握力(30.1 ± 6.1 kg vs. 24.3 ± 5.2 kg; = 0.03页)和压力强度(7.2 ±1.5  公斤与5.8 ±1.3  公斤; = 0.04页)。AIN组DASH评分的改善更为显著(-26.6 ± 5.7 vs -14.6 ± 4.3;P = 0.02),说明功能恢复较好。AIN组虽有改善2PD的趋势,但差异无统计学意义(P = 0.18)。结论:与腓肠神经移植相比,AIN移植在高位尺神经损伤的二次修复中具有更好的效果,运动和感觉恢复、握力和夹紧力显著增强,整体功能改善。
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
128
期刊介绍: The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) aims to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of Orthopedic Sciences. The journal accepts scientific papers including original research, review article, short communication, case report, and letter to the editor in all fields of bone, joint, musculoskeletal surgery and related researches. The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) will publish papers in all aspects of today`s modern orthopedic sciences including: Arthroscopy, Arthroplasty, Sport Medicine, Reconstruction, Hand and Upper Extremity, Pediatric Orthopedics, Spine, Trauma, Foot and Ankle, Tumor, Joint Rheumatic Disease, Skeletal Imaging, Orthopedic Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation, Orthopedic Basic Sciences (Biomechanics, Biotechnology, Biomaterial..).
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信