弹道神经损伤:证据现状和基于经验的患者治疗方法

Q3 Medicine
{"title":"弹道神经损伤:证据现状和基于经验的患者治疗方法","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.01.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Nerve injuries secondary to gunshot wounds (GSWs) have been traditionally thought of as neurapraxic injuries with high likelihood of complete recovery. A review of the literature, however, highlights the misconceptions surrounding ballistic nerve injuries and their treatments. Contrary to this accepted dogma, approximately 30% to 60% of GSWs to the upper extremity may result in nerve injury requiring repair or reconstruction. Surgical exploration following ballistic injury reveals that 20% to 55% of nerves were lacerated requiring repair or grafting. Despite these numbers, outcomes after nerve repair or grafting are limited, and the limited data show evidence of poor functional recovery. In our experience, delayed exploration of GSW-related nerve injuries in patients without signs of functional recovery demonstrate large neuromas in continuity often requiring meticulous dissection and excision with resulting large gaps that require reconstruction. This has led us to explore options to identify patients with nerve deficits after GSWs who may benefit from earlier exploration. Others advocate for the exploration of all ballistic nerve injuries, which would represent a logistical challenge in high volume centers and may lead to unnecessary explorations of in continuity nerves. To facilitate identification of nerve injury following GSWs, we have explored the utilization of early ultrasound to identify patients with nerve lacerations that may benefit from early exploration (1–2 weeks after injury). Earlier exploration can lead to less technically challenging surgery, shorter nerve gaps, and more time for the nerve to recover. Herein, we present a series of cases to help illustrate this approach to the patient. Although early exploration and repair versus grafting of nerves may have benefits as outlined above, there are little to no data on outcomes of nerve repair or grafting in ballistic injuries in the more acute setting, 1 to 2 weeks after injury. Further research is needed both with regards to diagnosis and utilization of ultrasound, as well as postoperative outcomes in patients with ballistic nerve injuries to help guide our ever-evolving treatment protocols.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36920,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online","volume":"6 5","pages":"Pages 743-748"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589514124000513/pdfft?md5=113edcb048790db0d3c6fc306a6dd9ef&pid=1-s2.0-S2589514124000513-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ballistic Nerve Injuries: State of the Evidence and Approach to the Patient Based on Experience\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.01.021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Nerve injuries secondary to gunshot wounds (GSWs) have been traditionally thought of as neurapraxic injuries with high likelihood of complete recovery. A review of the literature, however, highlights the misconceptions surrounding ballistic nerve injuries and their treatments. Contrary to this accepted dogma, approximately 30% to 60% of GSWs to the upper extremity may result in nerve injury requiring repair or reconstruction. Surgical exploration following ballistic injury reveals that 20% to 55% of nerves were lacerated requiring repair or grafting. Despite these numbers, outcomes after nerve repair or grafting are limited, and the limited data show evidence of poor functional recovery. In our experience, delayed exploration of GSW-related nerve injuries in patients without signs of functional recovery demonstrate large neuromas in continuity often requiring meticulous dissection and excision with resulting large gaps that require reconstruction. This has led us to explore options to identify patients with nerve deficits after GSWs who may benefit from earlier exploration. Others advocate for the exploration of all ballistic nerve injuries, which would represent a logistical challenge in high volume centers and may lead to unnecessary explorations of in continuity nerves. To facilitate identification of nerve injury following GSWs, we have explored the utilization of early ultrasound to identify patients with nerve lacerations that may benefit from early exploration (1–2 weeks after injury). Earlier exploration can lead to less technically challenging surgery, shorter nerve gaps, and more time for the nerve to recover. Herein, we present a series of cases to help illustrate this approach to the patient. Although early exploration and repair versus grafting of nerves may have benefits as outlined above, there are little to no data on outcomes of nerve repair or grafting in ballistic injuries in the more acute setting, 1 to 2 weeks after injury. Further research is needed both with regards to diagnosis and utilization of ultrasound, as well as postoperative outcomes in patients with ballistic nerve injuries to help guide our ever-evolving treatment protocols.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online\",\"volume\":\"6 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 743-748\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589514124000513/pdfft?md5=113edcb048790db0d3c6fc306a6dd9ef&pid=1-s2.0-S2589514124000513-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589514124000513\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589514124000513","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

枪伤(GSW)继发的神经损伤传统上被认为是神经毒性损伤,完全恢复的可能性很高。然而,对文献的回顾突出表明了围绕弹道神经损伤及其治疗的误解。与这一公认的教条相反,约有 30% 至 60% 的上肢 GSW 可能会导致神经损伤,需要进行修复或重建。弹道损伤后的手术探查显示,20% 到 55% 的神经被撕裂,需要进行修复或移植。尽管有这些数据,但神经修复或移植后的结果却很有限,而且有限的数据显示功能恢复很差。根据我们的经验,对没有功能恢复迹象的 GSW 相关神经损伤患者进行延迟探查后,会发现连续性的大神经瘤往往需要进行细致的剥离和切除,导致需要重建的大间隙。这促使我们探索各种方案,以鉴别出 GSW 后出现神经缺损的患者,这些患者可能会受益于更早的探查。还有人主张对所有弹道神经损伤进行探查,但这对工作量大的中心来说是一项后勤挑战,而且可能导致对连续性神经进行不必要的探查。为了便于识别GSW后的神经损伤,我们探索了利用早期超声波来识别神经裂伤患者,这些患者可能受益于早期探查(损伤后1-2周)。早期探查可降低手术的技术难度,缩短神经间隙,为神经恢复提供更多时间。在此,我们通过一系列病例向患者说明这种方法。尽管如上所述,早期探查、修复或移植神经可能有好处,但在弹道损伤的急性期,即受伤后 1 到 2 周,几乎没有关于神经修复或移植结果的数据。我们需要进一步研究弹道神经损伤患者的诊断、超声波的使用以及术后效果,以帮助指导我们不断改进的治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ballistic Nerve Injuries: State of the Evidence and Approach to the Patient Based on Experience

Nerve injuries secondary to gunshot wounds (GSWs) have been traditionally thought of as neurapraxic injuries with high likelihood of complete recovery. A review of the literature, however, highlights the misconceptions surrounding ballistic nerve injuries and their treatments. Contrary to this accepted dogma, approximately 30% to 60% of GSWs to the upper extremity may result in nerve injury requiring repair or reconstruction. Surgical exploration following ballistic injury reveals that 20% to 55% of nerves were lacerated requiring repair or grafting. Despite these numbers, outcomes after nerve repair or grafting are limited, and the limited data show evidence of poor functional recovery. In our experience, delayed exploration of GSW-related nerve injuries in patients without signs of functional recovery demonstrate large neuromas in continuity often requiring meticulous dissection and excision with resulting large gaps that require reconstruction. This has led us to explore options to identify patients with nerve deficits after GSWs who may benefit from earlier exploration. Others advocate for the exploration of all ballistic nerve injuries, which would represent a logistical challenge in high volume centers and may lead to unnecessary explorations of in continuity nerves. To facilitate identification of nerve injury following GSWs, we have explored the utilization of early ultrasound to identify patients with nerve lacerations that may benefit from early exploration (1–2 weeks after injury). Earlier exploration can lead to less technically challenging surgery, shorter nerve gaps, and more time for the nerve to recover. Herein, we present a series of cases to help illustrate this approach to the patient. Although early exploration and repair versus grafting of nerves may have benefits as outlined above, there are little to no data on outcomes of nerve repair or grafting in ballistic injuries in the more acute setting, 1 to 2 weeks after injury. Further research is needed both with regards to diagnosis and utilization of ultrasound, as well as postoperative outcomes in patients with ballistic nerve injuries to help guide our ever-evolving treatment protocols.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
审稿时长
12 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