Muscle-in-Vein Conduits for the Treatment of Symptomatic Neuroma of Sensory Digital Nerves.
digital nerve reconstruction
hand surgery
muscle-in-vein conduit
neuroma
pain reduction
restoration of function
secondary nerve repair
Journal
Journal of personalized medicine
ISSN: 2075-4426
Titre abrégé: J Pers Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101602269
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Sep 2022
15 Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
20
08
2022
revised:
07
09
2022
accepted:
13
09
2022
entrez:
23
9
2022
pubmed:
24
9
2022
medline:
24
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Considering the debilitating burden of neuroma resulting in a significant loss of function and excruciating pain, the use of muscle-in-vein conduits (MVCs) for the reconstruction of painful neuroma of sensory nerves of the fingers was assessed. We retrospectively analyzed 10 patients who underwent secondary digital nerve repair by MVCs. The recovery of sensibility was evaluated by static and moving two-point discrimination (2PDs, 2PDm) and Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing (SWM). The minimum follow-up was set 12 months after the operation. The median period between trauma and nerve repair was 13.4 weeks (IQR 53.5). After neuroma resection, defects ranged from 10-35 mm (mean 17.7 mm, SD 0.75). The successful recovery of sensibility was achieved in 90% of patients after a median follow-up of 27.0 months (IQR 31.00). The mean 2PDs and 2PDm was 8.1 mm (SD 3.52) and 5.2 mm (SD 2.27), respectively. Assessment by SWM resulted in a mean value of 3.54 (SD 0.69). Reduction in pain was achieved among all patients; eight patients reported the complete relief of neuropathic pain. There was no recurrence of neuroma in any patient. Muscle-in-vein conduits provide an effective treatment for painful neuroma of digital nerves, resulting in satisfactory restoration of sensory function and relief of pain.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Considering the debilitating burden of neuroma resulting in a significant loss of function and excruciating pain, the use of muscle-in-vein conduits (MVCs) for the reconstruction of painful neuroma of sensory nerves of the fingers was assessed.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed 10 patients who underwent secondary digital nerve repair by MVCs. The recovery of sensibility was evaluated by static and moving two-point discrimination (2PDs, 2PDm) and Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing (SWM). The minimum follow-up was set 12 months after the operation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The median period between trauma and nerve repair was 13.4 weeks (IQR 53.5). After neuroma resection, defects ranged from 10-35 mm (mean 17.7 mm, SD 0.75). The successful recovery of sensibility was achieved in 90% of patients after a median follow-up of 27.0 months (IQR 31.00). The mean 2PDs and 2PDm was 8.1 mm (SD 3.52) and 5.2 mm (SD 2.27), respectively. Assessment by SWM resulted in a mean value of 3.54 (SD 0.69). Reduction in pain was achieved among all patients; eight patients reported the complete relief of neuropathic pain. There was no recurrence of neuroma in any patient.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Muscle-in-vein conduits provide an effective treatment for painful neuroma of digital nerves, resulting in satisfactory restoration of sensory function and relief of pain.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36143300
pii: jpm12091514
doi: 10.3390/jpm12091514
pmc: PMC9503054
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Neural Regen Res. 2016 Feb;11(2):338-44
pubmed: 27073390
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989 Dec;84(6):944-9; discussion 950-2
pubmed: 2587658
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990 Nov;86(5):928-34
pubmed: 2236318
Microsurgery. 2000;20(1):32-6
pubmed: 10617879
Ann Plast Surg. 2000 Nov;45(5):509-14
pubmed: 11092360
Microsurgery. 2020 Jul;40(5):527-537
pubmed: 32101338
J Hand Surg Br. 1993 Jun;18(3):327-30
pubmed: 8345259
Hand (N Y). 2016 Jun;11(2):NP5-9
pubmed: 27390572
Ann Plast Surg. 2019 Apr;82(4S Suppl 3):S247-S255
pubmed: 30855395
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990 Mar;85(3):419-24
pubmed: 2154831
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 1997 Jul;26(7):481-5
pubmed: 9247655
Am J Ind Med. 1996 Jun;29(6):602-8
pubmed: 8773720
J Hand Surg Br. 1993 Aug;18(4):449-53
pubmed: 8409654
Microsurgery. 2014 Nov;34(8):608-15
pubmed: 25088084
J Hand Surg Am. 1992 Jul;17(4):677-87
pubmed: 1629548
J Comp Neurol. 2005 Aug 22;489(2):249-59
pubmed: 15984006
Neural Regen Res. 2015 Oct;10(10):1674-7
pubmed: 26692868
J Hand Surg Am. 2013 Oct;38(10):1965-71
pubmed: 23998191
Microsurgery. 2000;20(1):37-41
pubmed: 10617880
Sci Rep. 2021 Jun 3;11(1):11691
pubmed: 34083605
Microsurgery. 1989;10(2):142-4
pubmed: 2770515
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021 Oct 04;9(10):e3832
pubmed: 34616638
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2009;87:141-72
pubmed: 19682637
Microsurgery. 2000;20(2):65-71
pubmed: 10702739
Neuroreport. 2010 Oct 6;21(14):958-62
pubmed: 20729767
Chir Main. 2010 Sep;29(4):255-62
pubmed: 20727807
Microsurgery. 2012 Jul;32(5):358-63
pubmed: 22422438
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018 Oct 16;6(10):e1952
pubmed: 30534497
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2000 Feb;16(2):95-8; discussion 98-9
pubmed: 10706198
Neurosurg Focus. 2004 May 15;16(5):E1
pubmed: 15174821
Pain. 2018 Feb;159(2):214-223
pubmed: 29189515
J Hand Surg Am. 2014 Jun;39(6):1208-15
pubmed: 24862117
J Hand Surg Am. 2011 Jan;36(1):183
pubmed: 21193138
Microsurgery. 1993;14(4):247-51
pubmed: 8412634
Acta Biomed. 2021 Apr 30;92(S1):e2021163
pubmed: 33944845
J Hand Surg Am. 2010 Sep;35(9):1418-26
pubmed: 20807618