Successful treatment of the painful neuroma is a particular challenge to the nerve surgeon. Historically, symptomatic neuromas have primarily been treated with excision and implantation techniques, ...which are inherently passive and do not address the terminal end of the nerve. Over the past decade, the surgical management of neuromas has undergone a paradigm shift synchronous with the development of contemporary techniques aiming to satisfy the nerve end. In this article, we describe the important features of surgical treatment, including the approach to diagnosis with consideration of neuroma type and the decision of partial versus complete neuroma excision. A comprehensive list of the available surgical techniques for management following neuroma excision is presented, the choice of which is often predicated upon the availability of the terminal nerve end for reconstruction. Techniques for neuroma reconstruction in the presence of an intact terminal nerve end include hollow tube reconstruction and auto- or allograft nerve reconstruction. Techniques for neuroma management in the absence of an intact or identifiable terminal nerve end include submuscular or interosseous implantation, centro-central neurorrhaphy, relocation nerve grafting, nerve cap placement, use of regenerative peripheral nerve interface, “end-to-side” neurorrhaphy, and targeted muscle reinnervation. These techniques can be further categorized into passive/ablative and active/reconstructive modalities. The nerve surgeon must be aware of available treatment options and should carefully choose the most appropriate intervention for each patient. Comparative studies are lacking and will be necessary in the future to determine the relative effectiveness of each technique.
We tested the null hypothesis that no factors are independently associated with the development of symptomatic neuroma after traumatic digital amputation.
We performed a retrospective review of 1,083 ...patients who underwent revision amputation for traumatic digital amputation; we excluded those undergoing replantation or revascularization. Patients who developed a painful neuroma during follow-up were identified with a minimum follow-up of 1 week and a median of 3.3 months. We calculated the rate of developing a painful neuroma as a proportion of the total number of patients and performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify factors independently associated with its development.
Of 1,083 patients, 71 (6.6%) developed a symptomatic neuroma. Mean time to diagnosis was 6.4 months. A total of 47 patients (66%) underwent surgery for painful neuroma. Mean time to surgical intervention was 11 months. Index finger injury and avulsion injury mechanism were significantly associated with a higher risk for symptomatic neuroma.
Approximately 1 in 15 patients will develop a symptomatic neuroma after traumatic digital amputation and more than half of these patients will undergo revision surgery for neuroma, with a mean time to operative intervention of 11 months.
Prognostic II.
Ideal nerve repair involves tensionless direct repair, which may not be possible after resection. Bridging materials include nerve autograft, allograft, or conduit. This study aimed to perform a ...systematic literature review and meta-analysis to compare the meaningful recovery (MR) rates and postoperative complications following autograft, allograft, and conduit repairs in nerve gaps greater than 5 mm and less than 70 mm. A secondary aim was to perform a comparison of procedure costs.
The search was conducted in MEDLINE from January of 1980 to March of 2020, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were included whether they reported nerve injury type, repair type, gap length, and outcomes for MR rates. Thirty-five studies with 1559 nerve repairs were identified.
Overall MR for sensory and motor function was not significantly different between autograft ( n = 670) and allograft ( n = 711) across both short and long gaps. However, MR rates for autograft (81.6%) and allograft (87.1%) repairs were significantly higher compared with conduits (62.2%) ( P < 0.05) in sensory short gap repairs. Complication rates were comparable for autograft and allograft but higher for conduit with regard to pain. Analysis of costs showed that total costs for allograft repair were less than autograft in the inpatient setting and were comparable in the outpatient setting.
Literature showed comparable rates of MR between autograft and allograft, regardless of gap length or nerve type. Furthermore, the rates of MR were lower in conduit repairs. In addition, the economic analysis performed demonstrates that allograft does not represent an increased economic burden compared with autograft.
PDF
