Dataset Information

Clinical Outcomes of Symptomatic Neuroma Resection and Reconstruction with Processed Nerve Allograft.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Neuromas causing sensory disturbance can substantially affect nerve function and quality of life. Historically, passive termination of the nerve end and proximal relocation to muscle or bone has been performed after neuroma resection, but this method does not allow for neurologic recovery or prevent recurrent neuromas. The use of processed nerve allografts (PNAs) for intercalary reconstruction of nerve defects following neuroma resection is reasonable for neuroma management, although reported outcomes are limited. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes of pain reduction and functional recovery following neuroma resection and intercalary nerve reconstruction using PNA.

Methods

Data on outcomes of PNA use for peripheral nerve reconstruction were collected from a multicenter registry study. The registry database was queried for upper extremity nerve reconstruction with PNA after resection of symptomatic neuroma. Patients completing both pain and quantitative sensory assessments were included in the analysis. Improvement in pain-related symptoms was determined via patient self-reported outcomes and/or the visual analog scale. Meaningful sensory recovery was defined as a score of at least S3 on the Medical Research Council Classification scale.

Results

Twenty-five repairs involving 21 patients were included in this study. The median interval from injury to reconstruction was 386 days, and the average nerve defect length was 31 mm. Pain improved in 80% of repairs. Meaningful sensory recovery was achieved in 88% of repairs.

Conclusion

Neuroma resection and nerve reconstruction using PNA can reduce or eliminate chronic peripheral nerve pain and provide meaningful sensory recovery.

SUBMITTER: Jain SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8489892 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent repair options for peripheral nerve injuries where tension-free gap closure is not possible include allograft, processed nerve allograft, and hollow tube conduit. Here we report on the outcomes from a multicenter prospective, randomized, patient- and evaluator-blinded, pilot study comparing processed nerve allograft and hollow conduit for digital nerve reconstructions in the hand.MethodsAcross 4 centers, consented participants meeting inclusion criteria while not meeting exclusion criteria were randomized intraoperatively to either processed nerve allograft or hollow conduit. Standard sensory and safety assessments were conducted at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after reconstruction. The primary outcome was static 2-point discrimination (s2PD) testing. Participants and assessors were blinded to treatment. The contralateral digit served as the control.ResultsWe randomized 23 participants with 31 digital nerve injuries. Sixteen participants with 20 repairs had at least 6 months of follow-up while 12-month follow-up was available for 15 repairs. There were no significant differences in participant and baseline characteristics between treatment groups. The predominant nerve injury was laceration/sharp transection. The mean ± SD length of the nerve gap prior to repair was 12 ± 4 mm (5-20 mm) for both groups. The average s2PD for processed allograft was 5 ± 1 mm (n = 6) compared with 8 ± 5 mm (n = 9) for hollow conduits. The average moving 2PD for processed allograft was 5 ± 1 mm compared with 7 ± 5 mm for hollow conduits. All injuries randomized to processed nerve allograft returned some degree of s2PD as compared with 75% of the repairs in the conduit group. Two hollow conduits and one allograft were lost due to infection during the study.ConclusionsIn this pilot study, patients whose digital nerve reconstructions were performed with processed nerve allografts had significantly improved and more consistent functional sensory outcomes compared with hollow conduits.

Project description:Bone tumor resections for limb salvage have become standard treatment. Recently, computer-assisted navigation has been introduced to improve the accuracy of joint arthroplasty and possible tumor resection surgery; however, like with any new technology, its benefits and limitations need to be characterized for surgeons to make informed decisions about whether to use it.We wanted to (1) assess the technical problems associated with computer-assisted navigation; (2) assess the accuracy of the registration technique; (3) define the time required to perform a navigated resection in orthopedic oncology; and (4) the frequency of complications such as local recurrence, infection, nonunion, fracture, and articular collapse after tumor resection and bone reconstruction with allografts using intraoperative navigation assistance.We analyzed 69 consecutive patients with bone tumors of the extremities that were reconstructed with massive bone allografts using intraoperative navigation assistance with a minimum followup of 12 months (mean, 29 months; range, 12-43 months). All patients had their tumors reconstructed in three-dimensional format in a virtual platform and planning was performed to determine the osteotomy position according to oncology margins in a CT-MRI image fusion. Tumor resections and allograft reconstructions were performed using a computer navigation system according to the previously planned cuts. We analyzed intraoperative data such as technical problems related to the navigation procedure, registration technique error, length of time for the navigation procedure, and postoperative complications such as local recurrence, infection, nonunion, fracture, and articular collapse.In three patients (4%), the navigation was not carried out as a result of technical problems. Of the 66 cases in which navigation was performed, the mean registration error was 0.65 mm (range, 0.3-1.2 mm). The mean required time for navigation procedures, including bone resection and allograft reconstruction during surgery, was 35 minutes (range, 18-65 minutes). Complications that required a second surgical procedure were recorded for nine patients including one local recurrence, one infection, two fractures, one articular collapse, and four nonunions. In two of these nine patients, the allograft needed to be removed. At latest followup, three patients died of their original disease.The navigation procedure could not be performed for technical reasons in 4% of the series. The mean registration error was 0.65 mm in this series and the navigation procedure itself adds a mean of 35 minutes during surgery. The complications rate for this series was 14%. We found a nonunion rate of 6% in allograft reconstructions when we used a navigation system for the cuts.Level IV, case series. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited evidence for defining what specific method or methods should be used to clinically influence clinical decision making for forefoot neuroma. The aim of this study was to develop a clinical assessment protocol that has agreed expert consensus for the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma.MethodsA four-round Delphi consensus study was completed with 16 expert health professionals from either a clinical or clinical academic background, following completion of a structured literature review. Clinical experience ranged from 5 to 34 years (mean: 19.5 years). Consensus was sought on the optimal methods to achieve the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. Round 1 sought individual input with an open ended question. This developed a list of recommendations. Round 2 and 3 asked the participants to accept or reject each of the recommendations in the list in relation to the question: "What is the best way to clinically diagnose neuroma in the forefoot?" Votes that were equal to or greater than 60% were accepted into the next round; participant's votes equal to or less then 20% were excluded. The remaining participant's votes between 20 to 60% were accepted and placed into the following round for voting. Round 4 asked the participants to rank the list of recommendations according to the strength of recommendation they would give in relation to the question: "What is the best way to clinically diagnose neuroma in the forefoot?" The recruitment and Delphi rounds were conducted through email.ResultsIn round 1, the 16 participants identified 68 recommendations for the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. In round 2, 27 recommendations were accepted, 11 recommendations were rejected and 30 recommendations were assigned to be re-voted on. In round 3, 36 recommendations were accepted, 22 recommendations were rejected and 11 recommendations were assigned to be re-voted on. In round 4, 21 recommendations were selected by the participants to form the expert derived clinical assessment protocol for the clinical diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. From these 21 recommendations, a set of themes were established: location of pain, non weight bearing sensation, weight bearing sensation, observations, tests and imaging.ConclusionFollowing the identification of 21 method recommendations, a core set of clinical diagnostic methods have been prepared as a clinical assessment protocol for the diagnosis of forefoot neuroma. Based on expert opinion, the core set will assist clinicians in forming a clearer diagnosis of forefoot neuroma.