Short- and long-term results of common peroneal nerve injuries treated by neurolysis, direct suture or nerve graft.
Common peroneal nerve
Nerve graft
Neurolysis
Suture
Journal
European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie
ISSN: 1432-1068
Titre abrégé: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9518037
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
17
07
2018
accepted:
03
12
2018
pubmed:
12
12
2018
medline:
4
12
2019
entrez:
12
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Damage to the common peroneal nerve is the most frequent nerve injury in lower limb traumas. Our objective was to assess the motor and sensory recovery levels and the functional outcomes after remedial surgery for common peroneal nerve trauma, through either neurolysis, direct suture or nerve graft. This is a transversal, observational study of a monocentric cohort of 20 patients who underwent surgery between January 2004 and June 2016, which included 16 men and 4 women whose median age was 35 ± 11 years. We assessed the level of sensory and motor nerve recovery and the Kitaoka score. Nine patients benefited from neurolysis, 5 had direct sutures, and 6 received a nerve graft. With 48 months' average follow-up, 7 out of 9 patients underwent neurolysis and 4 out of 5 with direct sutures had good motor recovery (≥ M4), but none for the grafts. Sensory recovery (≥ S3) was satisfactory in 7 out of 9 cases in the neurolysis group, 3 out of 5 in the direct suture group, and 3 out of 6 in the nerve graft group. The average Kitaoka score was 83.7 ± 11.5 for the neurolysis group, 86.8 ± 16 for the direct suture group, and 73 ± 14 for the graft group. Surgical treatment by neurolysis and direct suture yields good results with a motor recovery ratio nearing 80%. When a nerve graft becomes necessary, recovery is poor and resorting to palliative techniques in the shorter run is a strategy which should be evaluated.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30535642
doi: 10.1007/s00590-018-2354-0
pii: 10.1007/s00590-018-2354-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
893-898Références
Bratisl Lek Listy. 2001;102(8):361-4
pubmed: 11763665
Neurosurg Rev. 2003 Jul;26(3):175-9
pubmed: 12845545
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1960 May;42-B:213-25
pubmed: 13849404
Neurosurgery. 2004 Jun;54(6):1421-8; discussion 1428-9
pubmed: 15157299
Folia Neuropathol. 2005;43(3):148-52
pubmed: 16245209
Neurosurgery. 2005 Dec;57(6):1201-12; discussion 1201-12
pubmed: 16331168
Microsurgery. 2006;26(4):295-302
pubmed: 16685740
Neurosurgery. 2008 Mar;62(3):664-73; discussion 664-73
pubmed: 18425013
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2008 Aug;24(6):419-27
pubmed: 18680090
Georgian Med News. 2009 Jan;(166):7-9
pubmed: 19202208
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991 Jun;(267):206-10
pubmed: 2044280
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Nov;18(11):1583-6
pubmed: 20640404
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Mar;470(3):779-90
pubmed: 21626085
Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Jul;69(1):48-53
pubmed: 22705726
J Orthop Traumatol. 2002 Jun;2(3):135-7
pubmed: 24604491
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Aug;134(2):302e-311e
pubmed: 25068351
Clin J Sport Med. 2017 Jan;27(1):10-19
pubmed: 26829610
Int Orthop. 1985;9(3):159-70
pubmed: 4077335
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1968 May;50(2):346-50
pubmed: 5651342
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995 May;77(3):501-3
pubmed: 7744946
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Sep;75(5):772-4
pubmed: 8376437
Int Orthop. 1996;20(2):87-91
pubmed: 8739700
Foot Ankle Int. 1997 Jul;18(7):443-6
pubmed: 9252816