Literature DB >> 11039375

A randomized prospective study of polyglycolic acid conduits for digital nerve reconstruction in humans.

R A Weber1, W C Breidenbach, R E Brown, M E Jabaley, D P Mass.   

Abstract

This article reports the first randomized prospective multicenter evaluation of a bioabsorbable conduit for nerve repair. The study enrolled 98 subjects with 136 nerve transections in the hand and prospectively randomized the repair to two groups: standard repair, either end-to-end or with a nerve graft, or repair using a polyglycolic acid conduit. Two-point discrimination was measured by a blinded observer at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after repair. There were 56 nerves repaired in the control group and 46 nerves repaired with a conduit available for follow-up. Three patients had a partial conduit extrusion as a result of loss of the initially crushed skin flap. The overall results showed no significant difference between the two groups as a whole. In the control group, excellent results were obtained in 43 percent of repairs, good results in 43 percent, and poor results in 14 percent. In those nerves repaired with a conduit, excellent results were obtained in 44 percent, good results in 30 percent, and poor results in 26 percent (p = 0.46). When the sensory recovery was examined with regard to length of nerve gap, however, nerves with gaps of 4 mm or less had better sensation when repaired with a conduit; the mean moving two-point discrimination was 3.7 +/- 1.4 mm for polyglycolic acid tube repair and 6.1 +/- 3.3 mm for end-to-end repairs (p = 0.03). All injured nerves with deficits of 8 mm or greater were reconstructed with either a nerve graft or a conduit. This subgroup also demonstrated a significant difference in favor of the polyglycolic acid tube. The mean moving two-point discrimination for the conduit was 6.8 +/- 3.8 mm, with excellent results obtained in 7 of 17 nerves, whereas the mean moving two-point discrimination for the graft repair was 12.9 +/- 2.4 mm, with excellent results obtained in none of the eight nerves (p < 0.001 and p = 0.06, respectively). This investigation demonstrates improved sensation when a conduit repair is used for nerve gaps of 4 mm or less, compared with end-to-end repair of digital nerves. Polyglycolic acid conduit repair also produces results superior to those of a nerve graft for larger nerve gaps and eliminates the donor-site morbidity associated with nerve-graft harvesting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11039375     DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200010000-00013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  80 in total

1.  A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Pilot Study of Outcomes for Digital Nerve Repair in the Hand Using Hollow Conduit Compared With Processed Allograft Nerve.

Authors:  Kenneth R Means; Brian D Rinker; James P Higgins; S Houston Payne; Gregory A Merrell; E F Shaw Wilgis
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2016-02-17

2.  Treatment of a Recurrent Neuroma Within Nerve Allograft With Autologous Nerve Reconstruction.

Authors:  Michael Sosin; Lindsay A Weiner; Bradley C Robertson; Ramon A DeJesus
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2016-02-26

Review 3.  Challenges in tissue engineering.

Authors:  Yoshito Ikada
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2006-10-22       Impact factor: 4.118

4.  Considerations in nerve repair.

Authors:  Larry M Wolford; Eber L L Stevao
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2003-04

5.  Regeneration and functional recovery of intrapelvic nerves removed during extensive surgery by a new artificial nerve conduit: a breakthrough to radical operation for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancers.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Tsujimoto; Tatsuo Nakamura; Tsuneharu Miki; Toshikazu Kubo; Eigo Otsuji; Hisakazu Yamagishi; Akeo Hagiwara
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Comparison of collagen biomatrix and omentum effectiveness on peripheral nerve regeneration.

Authors:  Berker Cemil; Durukan Ture; Banu Cevirgen; Figen Kaymaz; Memduh Kaymaz
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2009-03-31       Impact factor: 3.042

7.  Limitations of conduits in peripheral nerve repairs.

Authors:  Amy M Moore; Rahul Kasukurthi; Christina K Magill; H Francis Farhadi; Gregory H Borschel; Susan E Mackinnon
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2009-01-10

Review 8.  Biomaterials for the development of peripheral nerve guidance conduits.

Authors:  Alexander R Nectow; Kacey G Marra; David L Kaplan
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part B Rev       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 6.389

Review 9.  Clinical outcomes for Conduits and Scaffolds in peripheral nerve repair.

Authors:  David J Gerth; Jun Tashiro; Seth R Thaller
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2015-02-16       Impact factor: 1.337

10.  Introduction to special issue: Challenges and opportunities for regeneration in the peripheral nervous system.

Authors:  Ahmet Höke; Thomas Brushart
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 5.330

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.