Common Peroneal Nerve Grafting to Repair the Tibial Nerve as a Salvage Procedure in the Treatment of Sciatic Nerve Injury with Long-Segment Defects

Haodong Lin, De-song Chen, C. Hou
{"title":"Common Peroneal Nerve Grafting to Repair the Tibial Nerve as a Salvage Procedure in the Treatment of Sciatic Nerve Injury with Long-Segment Defects","authors":"Haodong Lin, De-song Chen, C. Hou","doi":"10.1055/s-0038-1653951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background In sciatic nerve neuropathies, when direct nerve repair is impossible due to a large gap, nerve grafting can be performed. However, the diameters of traditional autologous nerve grafts are too small to cover the whole cross-sectional area of the sciatic nerve. The aim of this study is to present the outcome of common peroneal nerve grafting to repair the tibial nerve in eight patients with sciatic nerve injuries, showing long defects of more than 10 cm. Methods Between 2007 and 2013, the common peroneal nerve was used as an autograft to repair the tibial nerve in eight patients with complete high sciatic nerve injury with long defects. There were 6 men and 2 women with an average age of 31 years (range: 17–44 years). Muscle strength was evaluated using the British Medical Research Council scale. The Semmes–Weinstein monofilament test was used for sensory evaluation. Results The follow-up time for patients ranged from 36 to 60 months, with an average of 48.75 months. Tibial nerve motor function was “good” or “very good” (M3–M4) in five out of eight patients (55.6%). Plantar flexion was not adequate in the rest of the patients. Sensory recovery was “good” or “very good” (S2–S3) in six patients and “inadequate” (S4) in two patients. Conclusion In cases where there were extensive gaps in the sciatic nerve, using the common peroneal nerve as an autograft to repair the tibial nerve provides an alternative to traditional nerve graft repair.","PeriodicalId":34024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery Open","volume":"03 1","pages":"e41 - e45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0038-1653951","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1653951","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Background In sciatic nerve neuropathies, when direct nerve repair is impossible due to a large gap, nerve grafting can be performed. However, the diameters of traditional autologous nerve grafts are too small to cover the whole cross-sectional area of the sciatic nerve. The aim of this study is to present the outcome of common peroneal nerve grafting to repair the tibial nerve in eight patients with sciatic nerve injuries, showing long defects of more than 10 cm. Methods Between 2007 and 2013, the common peroneal nerve was used as an autograft to repair the tibial nerve in eight patients with complete high sciatic nerve injury with long defects. There were 6 men and 2 women with an average age of 31 years (range: 17–44 years). Muscle strength was evaluated using the British Medical Research Council scale. The Semmes–Weinstein monofilament test was used for sensory evaluation. Results The follow-up time for patients ranged from 36 to 60 months, with an average of 48.75 months. Tibial nerve motor function was “good” or “very good” (M3–M4) in five out of eight patients (55.6%). Plantar flexion was not adequate in the rest of the patients. Sensory recovery was “good” or “very good” (S2–S3) in six patients and “inadequate” (S4) in two patients. Conclusion In cases where there were extensive gaps in the sciatic nerve, using the common peroneal nerve as an autograft to repair the tibial nerve provides an alternative to traditional nerve graft repair.
腓总神经移植修复胫神经修复术治疗坐骨神经损伤伴长节段缺损
摘要背景对于坐骨神经病变,当神经间隙大,无法直接修复时,可以进行神经移植。然而,传统的自体神经移植物的直径太小,无法覆盖整个坐骨神经的横截面积。本研究的目的是报告8例坐骨神经损伤患者的腓骨总神经移植修复胫骨神经的结果,这些患者的坐骨神经缺损长度超过10cm。方法2007 ~ 2013年,采用腓总神经作为自体移植物修复8例完全性高位坐骨神经损伤伴长缺损的胫骨神经。男性6名,女性2名,平均年龄31岁(范围17-44岁)。肌肉力量采用英国医学研究委员会量表进行评估。感官评价采用Semmes-Weinstein单丝试验。结果随访时间36 ~ 60个月,平均48.75个月。8例患者中有5例(55.6%)的胫骨神经运动功能为“好”或“非常好”(M3-M4)。其余患者足底屈曲不充分。6例患者感觉恢复“良好”或“非常好”(S2-S3), 2例患者感觉恢复“不足”(S4)。结论在坐骨神经间隙较大的情况下,自体腓总神经修复胫骨神经是传统神经移植修复的另一种选择。
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
6
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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