A systematic review of clinical and laboratory studies comparing vascularised versus non-vascularised nerve grafts in peripheral nerve reconstruction.

Animal Human Microsurgery Nerve graft Peripheral nerve injuries Vascularised nerve graft

Résumé

Peripheral nerve injuries (PNIs) are common, with complex defects posing a significant reconstructive challenge. Although vascularised (VNGs) and non-vascularised nerve grafts (NVNGs) are established treatment options, there is no comprehensive summary of the evidence supporting their clinical, electrophysiological, and histological outcomes. This review aims to systematically evaluate the clinical and laboratory literature comparing VNGs and NVNGs to inform future clinical practice and research. This review was prospectively registered and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Register were systematically searched. Studies comparing VNGs and NVNGs in PNIs were included. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported in ≥3 laboratory studies. Functional outcomes were synthesised by vote-counting based on direction of effect for clinical studies. Risk-of-bias was assessed using RoB2, ROBINS-I, and SYRCLE, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Seven clinical and 34 laboratory studies were included. Of the clinical comparisons, 90% and 56% identified an effect on recovery of sensibility (p = 0.01) and motor function (p = 0.05), respectively, that favoured VNGs. Nine (of 13) separate meta-analyses of laboratory studies demonstrated reduced muscular atrophy, superior axonal regeneration, and remyelination in VNGs. VNGs eliminated the 3-day interval of ischaemia otherwise sustained by NVNGs. Overall, the quality of evidence was low. This systematic review indicates that VNGs may offer some advantages over NVNGs in PNI reconstruction. However, due to the low quality of evidence, significant statistical heterogeneity, and clinical diversity of the included studies, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution. Further high-quality clinical trials are necessary to validate these findings.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

Peripheral nerve injuries (PNIs) are common, with complex defects posing a significant reconstructive challenge. Although vascularised (VNGs) and non-vascularised nerve grafts (NVNGs) are established treatment options, there is no comprehensive summary of the evidence supporting their clinical, electrophysiological, and histological outcomes. This review aims to systematically evaluate the clinical and laboratory literature comparing VNGs and NVNGs to inform future clinical practice and research.

METHODS METHODS

This review was prospectively registered and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Register were systematically searched. Studies comparing VNGs and NVNGs in PNIs were included. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported in ≥3 laboratory studies. Functional outcomes were synthesised by vote-counting based on direction of effect for clinical studies. Risk-of-bias was assessed using RoB2, ROBINS-I, and SYRCLE, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.

RESULTS RESULTS

Seven clinical and 34 laboratory studies were included. Of the clinical comparisons, 90% and 56% identified an effect on recovery of sensibility (p = 0.01) and motor function (p = 0.05), respectively, that favoured VNGs. Nine (of 13) separate meta-analyses of laboratory studies demonstrated reduced muscular atrophy, superior axonal regeneration, and remyelination in VNGs. VNGs eliminated the 3-day interval of ischaemia otherwise sustained by NVNGs. Overall, the quality of evidence was low.

CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review indicates that VNGs may offer some advantages over NVNGs in PNI reconstruction. However, due to the low quality of evidence, significant statistical heterogeneity, and clinical diversity of the included studies, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution. Further high-quality clinical trials are necessary to validate these findings.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.07.064 PMID: 39168029

pubmed: 39168029

pii: S1748-6815(24)00431-5

doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.07.064

pii:

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

182-199

A systematic review of clinical and laboratory studies comparing vascularised versus non-vascularised nerve grafts in peripheral nerve reconstruction.

Journal

Informations de publication

Résumé

Sections du résumé

Identifiants

Types de publication

Langues

Sous-ensembles de citation

Pagination

Informations de copyright

Auteurs

Louis Boyce (L)

Justin Conrad Rosen Wormald (JCR)

Chye Yew Ng (CY)

Robert Miller (R)

Classifications MeSH