Abstract
Objective
The detailed outcome of surgical repair of high isolated clean sharp (HICS) ulnar nerve lesions has become relevant in view of the recent development of distal nerve transfer. Our goal was to determine the outcome of HICS ulnar nerve repair in order to create a basis for the optimal management of these lesions.
Methods
High ulnar nerve lesions are defined as localized in the area ranging from the proximal forearm to the axilla just distal to the branching of the medial cord of the brachial plexus. A meta-analysis of the literature concerning high ulnar nerve injuries was performed. Additionally, a retrospective study of the outcome of nerve repair of HICS ulnar nerve injuries at our institution was performed. The Rotterdam Intrinsic Hand Myometer and the Rosén-Lundborg protocol were used.
Results
The literature review identified 46 papers. Many articles presented outcomes of mixed lesion groups consisting of combined ulnar and median nerves, or the outcome of high and low level injuries was pooled. In addition, outcome was expressed using different scoring systems. 40 patients with HICS ulnar nerve lesions were found with sufficient data for further analysis. In our institution, 15 patients had nerve repair with a median interval between trauma and reconstruction of 17 days (range 0–516). The mean score of the motor and sensory domain of the Rosen's Scale instrument was 58% and 38% of the unaffected arm, respectively. Two-point discrimination never reached less then 12 mm.
Conclusion
From the literature, it was not possible to draw a definitive conclusion on outcome of surgical repair of HICS ulnar nerve lesions. Detailed neurological function assessment of our own patients showed that some ulnar nerve function returned. Intrinsic muscle strength recovery was generally poor. Based on this study, one might cautiously argue that repair strategies of HICS ulnar nerve lesions need to be improved.
Introduction
Traumatic isolated ulnar nerve injuries result in function loss of ulnar wrist, dig IV and V flexion, sophisticated complex hand movements and sensory loss in the hypothenar, half of dig IV and V. It is generally held that surgical repair of ulnar nerve lesions do relatively poor as compared to, for instance, the radial and median nerve. The level of injury can roughly be divided into high or low, referring to the distance of the lesion to the sensory and motor end organs. Surgical repair of high lesions results generally in poorer outcome than in low lesions [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. In high lesions, axons have to bridge a larger distance to the end organ than in the lower lesion. In the time needed to reach the end organ, multiple irreversible changes take place, which negatively affect outcome. For a proper interpretation of nerve surgical outcome, it is of eminent importance to group patients with similar type and level of lesion. Most articles on traumatic ulnar nerve lesions have primarily focused on wrist-level or forearm injuries [6], [7], [8], [9]. There are some papers with reference to high lesions [4], [10], [11], [12], [13], however, these papers report only mixed data (i.e. high and low injuries grouped together) and use different kinds of outcome measurements like the Rosen Score [9], percentage of good hand (Woodhall method) [2], MRC-score [10], LSUHSC criteria [13] and the Seddon score [14]. In this study we focus on high isolated clean sharp (HICS) ulnar nerve lesions defined as lesions localized in the area ranging from the proximal forearm to the axilla just distal to the branching of the medial cord of the brachial plexus. Recently, the distal nerve transfer technique was introduced in which the anterior interosseus nerve is connected to the deep ulnar nerve motor branch for the surgical repair of ulnar nerve lesions [15], [16]. This technique can potentially be used to optimize outcomes of HICS ulnar nerve lesions. To our knowledge, 32 cases have been reported in five different papers and the results of this transfer seems promising [17], [18], [15], [19], [20]. Ideally, a distal nerve transfer should be performed as soon as possible preferably at the same time of repair of the ulnar nerve lesion in order to reduce the deleterious effects of prolonged denervation [21]. It than becomes relevant to know what the outcome can be expected from HICS ulnar nerve repair. We therefore performed a meta-analysis of the current literature of outcome following HICS ulnar nerve repair. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of our results of microsurgically repaired traumatic high isolated ulnar nerve injuries is presented. Based on our surgical results and those identified in the literature we present a rational for the treatment of HICS ulnar nerve lesions.
Methods
Search strategy
Medline (1966–8th June 2011) was searched for published papers using both key (MeSH-terms) and text words (Table S1). Additionally a similar search was performed on Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded) and EMBASE (1974–8th June 2011). Articles were initially first screened by title, abstract and key words. If reference was made to clinical outcome data and ulnar nerve repair, the article was selected for further reading. Articles, whose baseline were not clear enough nor had an abstract available or could not be rejected by its key words, were selected for further reading. Reviews were also selected for further reading. Finally, reference lists of the selected articles were studied and articles that were not initially found by the search strategy were added if they had appeared after 1965.
Studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria. (1) Ulnar nerve injury was caused by traumatic injuries resulting in clean-cut wounds or lacerations. (2) The ulnar nerve was conventionally repaired by either direct coaptation or autologous nerve grafting. (3) The injury was located in the area ranging from the proximal 1/3 part of the forearm to the axilla just distal to the branching of the medial cord of the brachial plexus. (4) Follow-up was at least two years long. (5) Injuries were isolated ulnar nerves.
The results of individual patients that met our inclusion criteria were converted from the description in the literature into the ulnar function score according to Birch [22] in order to present the data in a uniform fashion (Appendix S1). The converting algorithm was as follows: the motor outcome of each individual case was compared to the motor criteria specified in the Birch grading table. If neither of the criteria met the outcome, the next (lower) grade was compared, until finally all criteria were in accordance with the extracted outcome.
Study population
A retrospective study was performed of patients who had suffered a traumatic ulnar nerve injury between 1992 and 2009. Patients were selected from the peripheral nerve lesions database of the Department of Neurosurgery, which contains around 450 patients.
Inclusion criteria
Patients were included in our study if they had Sunderland [21] grades IV, V or Seddon's [23] neurotmesis intra operatively determined and respectively (1) one isolated clean, sharp injury that caused transection of the ulnar nerve (2) the injury was located in the area ranging from the proximal 1/3 part of the forearm above or just below the branch of the flexor digitorum profundus III & IV to the axilla just distal to the branching of the medial cord of the brachial plexus (3) the nerve was microsurgical repaired by immediately primary suture or after an interval usually with nerve grafting to bridge a residing gap following medial transposition of the nerve (4) follow up was longer than at least 2 years.
Exclusion criteria
Patients were excluded from the study if (1) the trauma was inflicted by any form of tumor growth or (2) damage occurred due to compression, (3) contusions and (4) root avulsions.
All patients that met our inclusion criteria were invited to visit our department for extensive and detailed neurological assessment of the affected upper limb.
Classification of level of injury
HICS ulnar nerve lesions were classified according to the level of injury into three parts as follows: (a) If the lesion was located above the Flexor Carpi Ulnaris (FCU) branch the level of injury was defined as a type I. (b) When the nerve was lacerated between the FCU and the Flexor Digitorum Profundus (FDP) III & IV branch the level of injury was defined as a type II lesion. (c) When the nerve was damaged below the FDP (III & IV) branch and no more than 10 centimeter distal from the elbow crease, the injury was defined as a type III HICS lesion (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Classification of the type of HICS ulnar nerve injury according to the level of transection.
Ulnar nerve function-assessment
The motor function of the following muscles was assessed: FCU, FDP III and IV, Abductor Digiti Quinti (ADQ) and MRC graded according to Seddon [24] and the ulnar function score according to Birch [22]. Sensory function of digit V and the ulnar half of digit IV were graded according to the Highet Scale modified by Dellon [25], [24].
In addition, the Rosen's Scale instrument was used as described by Rosén and Lundborg [26] and the Rotterdam Intrinsic Hand Myometer (RIHM) as described by Schreuders [27], [28], [29] for strength measurement of the intrinsic hand muscles was used.
The Rosen's Scale instrument
The Rosen's Scale instrument contains three domains: sensory, motor and pain/discomfort. For each of the three domains a maximum of one point can be scored. The sensory domain consists of four separate tests, both the motor and pain/discomfort domains consist of two tests each. The total score was calculated as described by Rosén. In short, in each test, points are given from zero to different maximum scores. Because the three domains consist of a different number of tests, the results are summarized and the quotient is calculated by dividing the obtained results from each domain with the unaffected hand score.
Motor domain
The motor domain consists of muscle strength which was assessed using MRC muscle power grading [30] and grip strength test (Jamar Dynamometer) [31], [32]. For the muscle power grading, the index finger abduction, as the little finger abduction and adduction were examined. Grip strength was scored using the Jamar Dynamometer (set at the second handle position). The patients were instructed to flex their elbow in an angle of approximately 90 degrees and to keep their shoulder adducted during the task.
Sensory domain
Sensory function was assessed with the pocket version of the Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments (Touch Test sensory Evaluator, North Coast Medical Inc) containing five probes (score 0–5) as described by Bell-Krotoski [33]. Tactile gnosis was assessed using static two-point discrimination (s2PD) according to Moberg [34] and the shape texture identification (STI) test described by Rosén and Lundborg [35]. Three different shapes and three simple textures with increasing difficulty needed to be identified with the distal phalanx of the fifth finger. To measure finger dexterity, patients performed three tasks selected from the standardized Sollerman hand function test [36], namely picking up coins from a flat surface and putting them into purses mounted on a wall (task 4), putting nuts on bolts (task 8) and close four buttons with button-holes of different size on pieces of cloth mounted on a plate (task 10). Time of completion and handgrip were scored of each of the three tasks.
Pain/discomfort domain
In the pain/discomfort domain a scale with four grades (0–3) was used to grade hyperesthesia and cold intolerance.
Rotterdam Intrinsic Hand Myometer
The motor recovery with the RIHM compares the injured side with the unaffected side. With the hand myometer the strength of resistance of movement of both the index finger and little finger were tested. For the index finger abduction and for the little finger both adduction and abduction was examined. The test was conducted as follows: the patient was seated with the elbow rested on a table and was instructed and shown how to hold the finger and asked to keep it in that position with maximum force. A sling (15-cm leather band) was applied to the similar anatomical reference points of the manual muscle testing as described by Brandsma [37]. Slowly the pulling force in a fixed perpendicular direction to the finger was increased with the instructor verbally encouraging the patient to hold the tested finger in position. After one second the instructor pulls in such a way that the position cannot be hold any longer and relaxes. This procedure is described by Ketchum [38] and is called the “break” test. The value reported on the RIHM device is expressed in Newton (N). Each test was repeated three times on both hands and the averages were noted and expressed as a percentage of the unaffected hand. If there was a muscle function recovery of less than MRC grade 3 it was not possible to use the RIHM dynamometer, because no resistance could be given and in these cases a “0” score was recorded.
Results
Literature search
The Medline and EMBASE search strategies identified a total of 412 articles. After removing duplicates 299 articles remained. No additional articles were found using the Science Citation Index. The screening on title, abstract and key words resulted in 47 articles for further analysis. Of these 47 articles, three papers were categorized as review without original patient series, and thus excluded [39], [40], [5]. Screening the reference lists of the 47 articles resulted in two additional articles [14], [41]. So, finally 46 articles were read in detail. Of the 46 articles, we excluded based on type of injury [42], [10], [13], [11], [4], [12], [43], [44], method of repair [45], [46], [47], [19], [18], [15], [48], level of injury [49], [50], [7], [51], [25], [9], [8], [6], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], not isolated ulnar nerve injuries [65], [41].
Ultimately eight papers did meet all our criteria and could be used for further analysis (Table 1). Seven papers presented individual patient data [66], [3], [67], [68], [14], [2], [69]. In one paper results of individual patients were not given, but were grouped by outcome [70].
Table 1. Results of review.
| Authors & Year | No. hUN(*) | Techniques | Motor grading scale | Sensory grading scale | Motor (sensory)# |
| Milessi et al., 1972 | 1 (32) | NG | Highet | 2PD, PTT (Protective) | M2 |
| Milessi et al., 1976 | 1 (12) | NG | BMRC (1954) | BMRC (1954) | M2 |
| Moneim, 1981 | 1 (10) | NG | Seddon (1973) | Seddon (1973) | M3 (S2) |
| Pluchino et al., 1981 | 1 (20) | NG | BMRC (1954) | M2+ | |
| Gaul, 1982 | 6 (41) | ES | % of normal power (WH) | ||
| Barrios et al., 1989 | 8 (44) | NG/FS/ES | BMRC (1954) | BMRC (1954) | |
| Barrios et al., 1991 | 2 (19) | FS | BMRC (1954) | BMRC (1954) | M3 (S3) |
| Kalomiri et al., 1995 | 20 (115) | NG | Seddon (1972) | Seddon (1972) |
Total Ulnar Nerves in manuscript, # Cut-off point of successful outcome in manuscript hUN High Ulnar nerve, NG Nerve grafting, FS fascicular suture, ES epineural suture, WH Woodhall Method, 2PD Two-point discrimination, PTT pain touch temperature.
From the included studies, we were able to extract 40 patients and the available data were used for transformation to the Birch score for uniformity [22] (Table 2). A good result, according to Birch was achieved in 29 of the 40 patients (72.5%). A poor result was found in six (15%) and a fair in two (5%) and three other outcomes were scored between fair and poor (7%). The mean interval between surgery and repair was 3.9 months (SD±3.67 range 0–13). Twenty-two lesions (55%) were at a high level and eighteen (45%) at intermediate level.
Table 2. Details of patients after ulnar nerve repair following HICS as identified in literature review.
| Authors & Year | Case (*) | A | B | C | D | E | F | G |
| Milessi et al., 1972 | 1 (nr. 3) | 4 (30) | 63 (M) | 13 | 48 | Good | 4–5 | SwT− PS+ |
| Milessi et al., 1976 | 2 (nr. 36) | 3 (100) | 12 (F) | 3 | 24 | Fair | ADQ = 0 | SwT− PS+ |
| Moneim, 1981 | 3 (JS) | 5 (20) | 20 | 1 | 33 | Good | Proximal 5/Distal 3 | 3 |
| Pluchino et al., 1981 | 4 (1) | (90) | 16 (F) | 9 | 2 years | Poor | 2 | - |
| Gaul, 1982 | 5 (CAE) | 14 (M) | 16 | Good | AP = 84%, INT1 = 67%, ADQ = 100% | - | ||
| 6 (TH) | 8 (M) | 36 | Good | AP = 60% | - | |||
| 7 (TH) | 7 (M) | 61 | Good | AP = 71%, INT1 = 56%, ADQ = 95% | - | |||
| 8 (JH) | 30 (M) | 50 | Fair/Poor | AP = 38%, INT1 = 50%, ADQ = 10% | - | |||
| 9 (SG) | 54 (M) | 60+ | Fair/Poor | AP = 35%, INT1 = 30%, ADQ = 35% | - | |||
| 10 (JLC) | 30 (M) | 60+ | Fair/Poor | AP = 25%, INT1 = 26%, ADQ = 30% | - | |||
| Barrios et al., 1989 | 11 (15) | 3 (50) | 6 (F) | 2 | 15 | Good | (1+) 4 | (0) 3 |
| 12 (20) | 4 (40) | 19 (M) | 10 | 55 | Good | (1+) 4 | (1) 4 | |
| 13 (22) | 4 (40) | 30 (M) | 11 | 100 | Poor | (2) 2+ | (1) 2+ | |
| 14 (27) | 3 (20) | 6 (F) | 3 | 21 | Good | (1+) 4 | (0) 4 | |
| 15 (28) | 4 (20) | 31 (M) | 5 | 13 | Good | (1+) 4 | (0) 4 | |
| 16 (29) | 3 (30) | 62 (M) | 5 | 3 | Good | (2) 4 | (2) 3 | |
| 17 (30) | 4 (30) | 30 (M) | 0 | 47 | Good | (1) 3 | (0) 3 | |
| 18 (34) | 0 (0) | 21 (M) | 1 | 31 | Poor | (1) 1 | (0) 3 | |
| Barrios et al., 1991 | 19 (5) | 12 (M) | 1 | Mean 2 years (1–5) | Fair | (2) 3 | (0) 2 | |
| 20 (7) | 8 F) | 1 | Mean 2 years (1–5) | Good | (0) 4 | (0) 3 | ||
| Kalomiri et al., 1995 | 4 cases | (55–80) | 13–28 | 4 | >2 years | Good | 4–5 | 3+−4 |
| 6 cases | (4–13) | 7–29 | 4 | >2 years | Good | 4-5 | 3 | |
| 4 cases | (4–9) | 7–23 | 5.5 | >2 years | Good | 3 | 3+−4 | |
| 3 cases | (6–10) | 17–35 | 4 | >2 years | Good | 3 | 3 | |
| 1 case | 75 | 40 | 6 | >2 years | Poor | 2+ | 2 | |
| 1 case | 50 | 39 | 8 | >2 years | Poor | 2 | 2 | |
| 1 case | 45 | 8 | >2 years | Poor | 1 | 2 |
Column A = Gap (distance in mm), B = Age (gender), C = Delay (Months), D = Follow-up (Months), E = Birch Score, F = Motor function: (Before) After surgery, G = Sensory function: (Before) After surgery AP adductor pollicis, INT1 first interosseus, ADQ Abductor digiti quinti, SwT−, Sweat test negative, PS+ Protective sensation, *identification in manuscript.
Results of Leiden population
Out of 280 patients surgically treated for nerve trauma, a total of 15 patients met our inclusion criteria. The average age was 30 years (range 8–62; SD±17). Patients were followed for an average of 75.3 months (range 24–146; SD±44.4) and the median delay from trauma to the surgery was 17 days (range 0–516) (Table 3). Eight of these 15 patients (53.33%) had a type I injury and seven (46.67%) had a type II or type III lesion.
Table 3. Characteristics of Leiden study group.
| Patients (N = 15) | No. of patients (%) |
| Men | 12 (80) |
| Women | 3 (20) |
| Total | |
| Mean age at time of repair (range) | 29.72 years (8–62) |
| Median delay between injury and surgery (range) | 17 days (0–516) |
| Mean follow-up after surgery (range) | 75.3 months (24–146) |
| Location of injury | |
| Type I | 8 (53.3) |
| Type II Type III | 2 (13.3) 5 (33.3) |
| Repair technique | |
| Epineural suture | 13 (86.7) |
| Graft | 2 (13.3) |
| Dominant Hand affected | |
| In Type I injuries | 6 (85.7) |
| In Type III injuries | 1 (14.3) |
Ulnar nerve function-assessment
Nine patients were willing to come for additional extra detailed neurological examination. The main reason for the remaining six patients to abstain from further detailed neurological assessment was that they themselves could not benefit from this study. Therefore, these six patients were evaluated based on the available data in their medical records.
Results of MRC motor and sensory recovery
According to the MRC scoring system five out of eight (62.5%) type I lesions, of which four patients had a detailed exam, gained a full (MRC grade 5) recovery for the FCU muscle. The best of the muscles FDP III/IV gained a full recovery in 50%. No patients regained full strength in the ADQ muscle and two patients had no recovery (MRC grade 0) at all. In the type II level group, the ADQ muscle recovered to MRC grade 4 in one patient and the other had no recovery in this muscle. The type III level group consisted of five patients of which three had a detailed exam. One patient regained strength MRC grade 4 in the ADQ muscle.
In the analysis according to the MRC score of sensory recovery in digit V four patients attained level S3/S3+, of which only one patient out of the type I level group. Four only gained sensory recovery of S1. One of them had a type II lesion and had a very long delay of more than one year before she was grafted. Sensory recovery in the ulnar part of digit IV showed a S4 result in only one patient with a type II lesion and young age. Level S3+ was gained in four patients. Two patients gained as little recovery as S1 in all three groups (Table 4).
Table 4. Ulnar nerve function-assessment with different scoring systems.
| MRC Motor – Before (after surgery) | MRC Sensory | Birch | RIHM* | Rosen Score | |||||||||||
| Case | Level | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N |
| 1 | Type I | + (−) | 0 (5) | 0 (4) | 0 (4) | 3 | |||||||||
| 2 | Type I | + (+) | 0 (4) | 0 (4) | 0 (0) | 2 | |||||||||
| 3 | Type I | + (+) | 0 (3) | 0 (4) | 0 (0) | 2 | |||||||||
| 4 | Type I | + (+) | 0 (5) | 0 (5) | 0 (4) | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3+ | 3 | 0 | 49.48 | 0 | 0.60 | 0.38 |
| 5 | Type I | + (+) | 0 (5) | 0 (5) | 0 (4) | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3+ | 3 | 71.76 | 55.76 | 0 | 0.78 | 0.33 |
| 6 | Type I | + (+) | 0 (5) | 0 (5) | 0 (1) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1+ | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.45 | 0.29 |
| 7 | Type I | + (+) | 0 (5) | 0 (5) | 0 (1) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.53 | 0.26 |
| 8 | Type I | + (+) | 0 (4) | 3 (4) | 0 (3) | 3 | |||||||||
| 9 | Type II | + (+) | 2 (5) | 0 (4) | 5 | 4 | 3+ | 4 | 3 | 70.58 | 45.66 | 65.12 | 0.81 | 0.68 | |
| 10 | Type II | + (+) | 0 (4) | 0 (0) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.19 | |
| 11 | Type III | + (+) | 0 (3) | 4 | 3 | 2+ | 3+ | 3 | 15.19 | 17.40 | 0 | 0.71 | 0.36 | ||
| 12 | Type III | + (+) | 0 (3) | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3+ | 3 | 26.14 | 35.39 | 6.59 | 0.68 | 0.48 | ||
| 13 | Type III | + (+) | 0 (0) | 3 | |||||||||||
| 14 | Type III | + (+) | 3 (3) | 3 | |||||||||||
| 15 | Type III | + (+) | 0 (4) | 4 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 39.47 | 34.26 | 0 | 0.61 | 0.41 | ||
Column A = Froment's Sign, B = Flexor Carpi Ulnaris, C = Best of Flexor Digitorum Profundus III or IV, D = Abductor Digiti Quinti, E = Abduction Index finger – first dorsal interosseus muscle, F = Adduction Little finger – third palmar interosseus muscle, G = Little finger, H = Ulnar half of ring finger, I = Birch Score (Good = 3, Fair = 2), J = Abduction of index finger, K = Abduction of little finger, L = Adduction of little finger, M = Motor domain, N = Sensory domain.
Percentage of normal hand.
Birch scoring system
In the analysis of motor recovery according to Birch 10 patients gained a good result (66.67%) and 5 patients (33.33%) gained a fair result. Four patients out of 8 in the type I level group, regained a good result. Of the type III level injuries all patients (100%) achieved a good result. So, lower location of lesion gave better results of repair (Table 4).
Rosen's Scale instrument
The average results of the total group showed a Rosen score of 1.7 on a maximum of 3. A detailed overview of the results per domain using the Rosen's Scale instrument can be found in Table 5.
Table 5. Leiden detailed ulnar nerve function-assessment of ulnar nerve function after repair following HICS grouped by measurement score.
| Measurement | Type I (N = 4) | Type II (N = 2) | Type III (N = 3) | Total (N = 9) |
| Rosen's Scale instrument | ||||
| Total score (0–3) | 1.74±0.24 (1.40–1.95) | 1.54±1.33 (0.60–2.49) | 1.75±0.35 (1.35–1.99) | 1.70 |
| Sensory domain (0–1) | 0.32±0.05 (0.26–0.38) | 0.43±0.34 (0.19–0.68) | 0.41±0.06 (0.36–0.48) | 0.38 |
| Semmes-Weinstein | 0.43±0.16 (0.21–0.58) | 0.60±0.38 (0.33–0.87) | 0.60±0.06 (0.54–0.67) | 0.53 |
| 2PD | 0.00 | 0.17±0.24 (0.00–0.33) | 0.00 | 0.04 |
| STI | 0.00 | 0.33±0.47 (0.00–0.67) | 0.28±0.10 (0.17–0.33) | 0.17 |
| Sollerman | 0.83±0.12 (0.75–1.00) | 0.63±0.29 (0.42–0.83) | 0.78±0.13 (0.67–0.92) | 0.77 |
| Motor domain (0–1) | 0.59±0.14 (0.45–0.78) | 0.44±0.52 (0.08–0.81) | 0.67±0.05 (0.61–0.71) | 0.58 |
| Manual Muscle Strength Test | 0.40±0.25 (0.20–0.73) | 0.47±0.57 (0.07–0.87) | 0.62±0.08 (0.53–0.67) | 0.49 |
| JAMAR | 0.78±0.07 (0.70–0.85) | 0.42±0.47 (0.09–0.75) | 0.71±0.04 (0.69–0.76) | 0.68 |
| Discomfort/pain domain (0–1) | 0.83±0.14 (0.67–1.00) | 0.67±0.47 (0.33–1.00) | 0.67±0.29 (0.33–0.83) | 0.74 |
| Cold intolerance | 0.83±0.19 (0.67–1.00) | 0.67±0.47 (0.33–1.00) | 0.67±0.58 (0.00–1.00) | 0.74 |
| Hyperaesthesia | 0.83±0.19 (0.67–1.00) | 0.67±0.47 (0.33–1.00) | 0.67 | 0.74 |
| RIHM (% of good hand) | ||||
| Abduction index finger | 17.94±35.88 (0.00–71.76) | 35.29±49.91 (0.00–70.58) | 26.93±12.16 (15.19–39.47) | 24.80 |
| Adduction little finger | 0.00 | 32.56±46.05 (0.00–65.12) | 2.20±3.80 (0.00–6.59) | 7.97 |
| Abduction little finger | 26.31±30.49 (0.00–55.76) | 22.83±32.29 (0.00–45.66) | 29.01±10.08 (17.40–35.39) | 26.4 |
Values in table presented as Mean±Standard Deviation (Range).
Motor domain
In the motor domain the average of the total group showed a score of 0.58 (range 0.08–0.81; SD±0.22) on a maximum of 1. Jamar grip strength showed a mean score of 0.68 (range 0.09–0.85; SD±0.23) in the total group.
Sensory domain
With the sensory domain analysis, an average sensibility score of 0.38 (range 0.19–0.68; SD±0.14) was found. Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments test showed a mean score of 0.53 (range 0.21–0.87; SD±0.19) in the total group. For the two-point discrimination those mean was 0.04 (range 0–0.33; SD±0.11) for the total group. Type I lesions scored zero with the two-point discrimination test. Shape texture identification showed averages of 0.17 (range 0–0.67; SD±0.24) for the total group and in the type I lesions zero. Dexterity measured with three tasks from Sollerman procedure showed means of 0.77 (range 0.42–1.00; SD±0.17) in the total group.
Pain/discomfort domain
The total group of nine patients scored an average of 0.74 (range 0.33–1.00; SD±0.25) for both Cold intolerance and Hyperaesthesia. Two of the nine patients had (0.33) severe/pronounced discomforts (Table 6).
Table 6. Ulnar nerve function-assessment of 15 patients and detailed ulnar nerve function-assessment of nine cases.
| Case | Level | A | B | C | D | E | F | G |
| 1 | Type I | 8 (M) | L (R) | DG(55) | 201 | 92 | ||
| 2 | Type I | 12 (M) | R (R) | PS | 0 | 24 | ||
| 3 | Type I | 20 (M) | R (R) | DPS | 396 | 27 | ||
| 4 | Type I | 23(M) | R (R) | PS | 0 | 146 | 0.83 | 1.82 |
| 5 | Type I | 26(M) | R (R) | PS | 0 | 104 | 0.83 | 1.95 |
| 6 | Type I | 36(M) | R (R) | PS | 0 | 88 | 0.67 | 1.40 |
| 7 | Type I | 56(M) | R (R) | DPS | 68 | 74 | 1.00 | 1.79 |
| 8 | Type I | 62 (F) | L (R) | DPS | 17 | 24 | ||
| 9 | Type II | 11(M) | L (R) | PS | 0 | 62 | 1.00 | 2.49 |
| 10 | Type II | 49(F) | L (R) | DG(15) | 516 | 95 | 0.33 | 0.60 |
| 11 | Type III | 15(M) | L (R) | DPS | 6 | 134 | 0.83 | 1.90 |
| 12 | Type III | 18(M) | L (R) | DPS | 47 | 146 | 0.83 | 1.99 |
| 13 | Type III | 29 (F) | L (R) | DPS | 77 | 24 | ||
| 14 | Type III | 38 (M) | R (R) | DPS | 293 | 36 | ||
| 15 | Type III | 42(M) | L (R) | PS | 0 | 53 | 0.33 | 1.35 |
Column A = Age (Gender), B = Side Injured (Dominant Hand), C = Surgical Technique, D = Delay in days, E = Follow-up in months, F = Rosen Score: Pain/discomfort domain (0–1), G = Total Rosen Score (0–3).
PS Primary suture, DPS Delayed primary suture, DG Delayed graft (graft in millimeter).
Rotterdam Intrinsic Hand Myometer
The RIHM analysis showed on average a strength (percentage of good hand) for the abduction of the index finger of 24.80 (range 0–71.76; SD±29.73) percent of the unaffected hand in the total group. The adduction of the little finger showed on average strength of 7.97 (range 0–65.12; SD±21.54) in the total group. There was zero recovery for type I lesions for the adduction of the little finger. The average regained abduction strength of the little finger was 26.4 (range 0–55.76; SD±22.59) percent for the total group (Tables 4 and 5).
Discussion
Several clinical factors which affect peripheral nerve function recovery after nerve repair have been identified over the last decades. These are: interval between trauma and reconstruction, level of injury, type of lesion and repair and age of the patient [21]. In addition, it is well recognized that the functional outcome following repair of different individual nerves, in otherwise comparable circumstances, are not the same. In fact: “each nerve has its own story”. A widely accepted explanation for this phenomenon has not yet been provided. The intrinsic complexity of the function of the nerve seems to play a role. In order to put outcomes of treatment in perspective, it is important to document the aforementioned factors. This is especially so to correctly interpret and evaluate the results of specific treatment paradigms and optimize treatment strategies.
In this study we focused solely on outcome of surgical repair of isolated clean sharp injuries of the ulnar nerve located in the area ranging from the proximal forearm to the axilla just distal to the branching of the medial cord of the brachial plexus. We performed a systematic literature search and analyzed our own data. Interestingly, in the literature only forty patients could be found that met appropriate criteria for correct interpretation of outcome. Our own series consists of fifteen patients.
Unfortunately, from the literature search, we could not draw any conclusions regarding the outcome. The data in most of the articles did not allow any comprehensive analysis for which several factors were accountable. Firstly, outcomes were given in groups consisting of combined ulnar and median nerve lesions with high or low level injuries. Secondly, lesions had different causes and were either sharp or blunt or resulted from gunshot wounds. Thirdly, some papers defined high injuries as injuries above the elbow whereas others defined these levels above and around the elbow. In addition, different definitions of intermediate and low levels were applied. Fourthly, levels of injury were not explicitly stated in all of the studies. Fifthly, most of the time, outcome was only presented in general terms and recoveries of strength of the proximal and distal muscles were not stated individually. Sixthly, different motor and sensory scoring systems were used to assess pre- and post-operative severity of the symptoms and, therefore, accurate grouping of the outcome data was not possible. Finally, as a seventh factor, outcomes were not always clearly defined. All factors taken together, made it impossible to get a clear picture of ulnar nerve function outcome following HICS nerve lesion repair.
For the analysis of our own series, we defined three types of ulnar nerve injuries based on nerve anatomical levels: Type I level lesion was defined as a nerve laceration above the first segregating FCU branch; Type II: between the FCU and the FDP branch: Type III just below the FDP branch. We used four different outcome assessments namely, MRC motor score, Birch Score, Rosen Score and the RIHM, in order to get an analysis as completely as possible.
In general, outcome of nerve repair is better when performed directly after trauma and will decline with increasing interval. Unfortunately, from our series we cannot draw any definite conclusion on intrinsic hand muscle recovery after immediate repair. It seems, however, that functional recovery of intrinsics is modest even in the setting of immediate repair. This might in part be due to misrouting of axons, and because axonal outgrowth and elongation over a relatively long distance does not take place. The ulnar nerve contains axons connected to many individual muscles. The function of these muscles is highly specialized, especially of the intrinsics. Misrouting of axons will, therefore, have a profound negative effect on the coordinated and integrated control of intrinsic muscle contraction. The effect of misrouting of axons in ulnar nerve lesions is probably higher than in, for instance, comparable radial nerve lesion. Almost all radial nerve axons are involved in one type of movement, namely extension.
The analysis of our patients showed that in most of the type I level injuries the muscle function of the proximal muscles regained good strength even those with delayed repair.
The Birch Score showed that a lower location of the lesion and the repair resulted in a better outcome. The analysis of motor recovery with the Birch scoring system showed that more than two third of the patients gained a good result. Transformation of the available data from the forty patients found in the literature showed a slightly higher percentage of good results (72.5%). However, recovery of the intrinsic hand muscles for abduction and adduction of the fifth digit and abduction of the index finger in our series measured with RIHM was poor in most patients. The main reason of this difference is the importance of muscles noted by these two scoring systems. A good outcome with the Birch score is already reached when the FCU and the FDP of the little and ring finger regained a MRC score of 4 or better and the intrinsic muscles attained at least MRC score 2.
The RIHM was especially developed for quantification of the strength of the intrinsic muscles and provides an objective scoring. Manual muscle strength testing applying the MRC (grades 0–5) method [24] has, although clinically widely used, specific limitations for ulnar nerve function assessment [28]. The intrinsic hand muscles are difficult to score because side-to-side movements of the fingers are partly depended on the extrinsic muscles. In addition, the ability to assess pressure as a parameter for muscle strength depends on experience of the examiner [27].
Regarding sensory recovery in our patient group there was some restoration of sensation especially in the ulnar half of digit IV, varying between fair and good. Some of the domains of the Rosen Score showed good recovery. In the motor domain, most of the patients had good grip strength. In the sensory domain, however, only a few patients could identify shape textured objects. None of our patients scored 2-point discrimination less than 12 mm. Moberg [34] defined a good result of nerve repair when the 2-point discrimination is less than 12 mm. In the pain domain, only two of the patients had severe discomforts.
The outcome of repair may differ depending on the presence of a Martin-Grüber connection [71]. The presence of such a connection should in fact be documented prior to nerve surgery with detailed electromyographic (EMG) studies. Martin-Grüber connections are present in around twenty five percent of normal individuals and in varying anatomical patterns. We have not performed EMG studies systematically focused on such connections in our patient series. Therefore, we do not know whether this factor does affect our major conclusions.
The question arises whether distal nerve transfer can improve useful intrinsic hand muscle function [72]. Favorable results based on this transfer have been reported [17], [18], [15], [19], [20]. Whether distal nerve transfers will optimize outcome following repair of HICS ulnar nerve lesions needs to be further assessed. The role of a transfer of a sensory branch to the distal nerve stump [73] or side-to-side [74], [75] or distal end-to-side nerve grafts [76] in order to slow down the process of degeneration of the distal targets in HICS ulnar nerve lesions remains to be established. Based on the results of our study one might cautiously argue that there is a basis to include distal nerve transfers at the same time as HICS ulnar nerve repair.
Conclusions
From the systematic literature review, no definite conclusions could be drawn concerning outcome of HICS ulnar nerve lesion and repair. From our own series we conclude that the proximal muscles generally regained useful strength of minimal MRC 4. Intrinsic muscle recovery was poor. Based on these results we conclude that complete recovery cannot be expected. Combining HICS ulnar nerve repair with distal nerve transfers at the same time might improve outcome.
Supporting Information
Birch Score for grading results of high ulnar nerve repair.
(DOC)
Literature search strategy.
(DOC)
Funding Statement
The authors have no support or funding to report.
References
- 1. Sakellarides H (1962) A follow-up study of 172 peripheral nerve injuries in the upper extremity in civilians. J Bone Joint Surg Am 44-A: 140–148. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Gaul JS Jr (1982) Intrinsic motor recovery–a long-term study of ulnar nerve repair. J Hand Surg Am 7: 502–508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Barrios C, Amillo S, De Pablos J, Canadell J (1990) Secondary repair of ulnar nerve injury. 44 Cases followed for 2 years. Acta Orthop Scand Feb 61(1): 46–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Vastamaki M, Kallio PK, Solonen KA (1993) The results of secondary microsurgical repair of ulnar nerve injury. J Hand Surg Br 18: 323–326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Ruijs ACJ, Jaquet JB, Kalmijn S, Giele H, Hovius SER (2005) Median and ulnar nerve injuries: A meta analysis of predictors of motor and sensory recovery after modern microsurgical nerve repair. Plast Reconstr Surg 116: 484–494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Trail IA (1985) Delayed repair of the ulnar nerve. J Hand Surg Br 10: 345–346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Leclercq DC, Carlier AJ, Khuc T, Depierreux L, Lejeune GN (1985) Improvement in the results in sixty-four ulnar nerve sections associated with arterial repair. J Hand Surg Am 10: 997–999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Rosen B, Dahlin LB, Lundborg G (2000) Assessment of functional outcome after nerve repair in a longitudinal cohort. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 34: 71–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Rosen B, Lundborg G (2001) The long term recovery curve in adults after median or ulnar nerve repair: a reference interval. J Hand Surg Br 26: 196–200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Trumble TE, Kahn U, Vanderhooft E, Bach AW (1995) A technique to quantitate motor recovery following nerve grafting. J Hand Surg Am 20: 367–372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Trevett MC, Tuson C, de Jager LT, Juon JM (1995) The functional results of ulnar nerve repair. Defining the indications for tendon transfer. J Hand Surg Br 20: 444–446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Matejcvik V (2002) Peripheral nerve reconstruction by autograft. Injury 33: 627–631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Kim DH, Han K, Tiel RL, Murovic JA, Kline DG (2003) Surgical outcomes of 654 ulnar nerve lesions. J Neurosurg 98: 993–1004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Moneim MS (1982) Interfascicular nerve grafting. Clin Orthop Relat Res: 65–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Battiston B, Lanzetta M (1999) Reconstruction of high ulnar nerve lesions by distal double median to ulnar nerve transfer. J Hand Surg Am 24: 1185–1191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Brown JM, Yee A, Mackinnon SE (2009) Distal median to ulnar nerve transfers to restore ulnar motor and sensory function within the hand: technical nuances. Neurosurgery 65: 966–977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. DeSmet L (2006) Anterior interosseous nerve transfer to the motor branch of the ulnar nerve: a case report. Eur J Plast Surg 28: 523–524. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Haase SC, Chung KC (2002) Anterior interosseous nerve transfer to the motor branch of the ulnar nerve for high ulnar nerve injuries. Ann Plast Surg 49: 285–290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Novak CB, Mackinnon SE (2002) Distal anterior interosseous nerve transfer to the deep motor branch of the ulnar nerve for reconstruction of high ulnar nerve injuries. J Reconstr Microsurg 18: 459–464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Wang Y, Zhu S (1997) Transfer of a branch of the anterior interosseus nerve to the motor branch of the median nerve and ulnar nerve. Chin Med J (Engl) 110: 216–219. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Sunderland S (1978) Nerves and nerve injuries. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Birch R, Bonney G, Wynn Parry CB (1998) Surgical disorders of the peripheral nerves. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. 240–240 p. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Seddon HJ (1975) Surgical disorders of the perpiheral nerves. London, churchill Livingston. p. 303.
- 24.Seddon HJ, Medical Research C, Nerve Injuries C (1954) Medical Research Council (MRC) Results of nerve suture. London: H.M.S.O.
- 25. Dellon AL, Curtis RM, Edgerton MT (1974) Reeducation of Sensation in Hand After Nerve Injury and Repair. Plast Reconstr Surg 53: 297–305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Rosen B, Lundborg G (2000) A model instrument for the documentation of outcome after nerve repair. J Hand Surg Am 25A: 535–543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Schreuders TA, Selles RW, Roebroeck ME, Stam HJ (2006) Strength measurements of the intrinsic hand muscles: a review of the development and evaluation of the Rotterdam intrinsic hand myometer. J Hand Ther 19: 393–401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Schreuders TAR, Roebroeck ME, Jaquet JB, Hovius SER, Stam HJ (2004) Long-term outcome of muscle strength in ulnar and median nerve injury: Comparing manual muscle strength testing, grip and pinch strength dynamometers and a new intrinsic muscle strength dynamometer. J Rehabil Med 36: 273–278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Schreuders TAR, Roebroeck ME, Jaquet JB, Hovius SER, Stam HJ (2004) Measuring the strength of the intrinsic muscles of the hand in patients with ulnar and median nerve injuries: Reliability of the Rotterdam Intrinsic Hand Myometer (RIHM). J Hand Surg Am 29A: 318–324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Seddon HJ (1954). Peripheral nerve injuries Medical Research Council Special Report Series 282: London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. [Google Scholar]
- 31. Marx RG, Bombardier C, Wright JG (1999) What do we know about the reliability and validity of physical examination tests used to examine the upper extremity? J Hand Surg Am 24A: 185–193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Volland G, Kashman N (1984) Reliability and Validity of Grip and Pinch Strength Evaluations. J Hand Surg Am 9A: 222–226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Bell-Krotoski JA (2009) Sensibility testing: current concepts.In: Hunter Jm MEJCADe, editor. Rehabilitation of the hand: surgery and therapy 4th ed St Louis: Mosby 1995: 109–128. [Google Scholar]
- 34. Moberg E (1990) Two-point discrimination test. A valuable part of hand surgical rehabilitation, e.g. in tetraplegia. Scand J Rehabil Med 22: 127–134. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Rosen B, Lundborg G (1998) A new tactile gnosis instrument in sensibility testing. J Hand Ther 11: 251–257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Sollerman C, Ejeskar A (1995) Sollerman Hand Function-Test – A Standardized Method and Its Use in Tetraplegic Patients. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 29: 167–176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Brandsma JW, Schreuders TA, Birke JA, Piefer A, Oostendorp R (1995) Manual muscle strength testing: intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities for the intrinsic muscles of the hand. J Hand Ther 8: 185–190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Ketchum LD, Thompson D, Pocock G, Wallingford D (1978) A clinical study of forces generated by the intrinsic muscles of the index finger and the extrinsic flexor and extensor muscles of the hand. J Hand Surg Am 3: 571–578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Pfaeffle HJ, Waitayawinyu T, Trumble TE (2007) Ulnar nerve laceration and repair. Hand Clin 23: 291–299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Waldram M (2003) Peripheral nerve injuries. Trauma 5(2): 79–96. [Google Scholar]
- 41. Singh R (1992) Long-term results of transplantations to repair median, ulnar, and radial nerve lesions by a microsurgical interfascicular autogenous cable graft technique. Surg Neurol 37: 425–431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Omer GE Jr (1974) Injuries to nerves of the upper extremity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 56: 1615–1624. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Haase J (1980) Median and ulnar nerve transections treated with microsurgical interfascicular cable grafting with autogenous sural nerve. J Neurosurg 53: 73–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Sud V, Chang J, Lineaweaver MW (2001) Acute nerve grafting in traumatic injuries: two case studies. Ann Plast Surg 47: 555–559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Bonney G, Birch R, Jamieson AM, Eames RA (1984) Experience with vascularized nerve grafts. Clin Plast Surg 11: 137–142. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Williams HB (1996) A clinical pilot study to assess functional return following continuous muscle stimulation after nerve injury and repair in the upper extremity using a completely implantable electrical system. Microsurgery 17: 597–605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Nicolaidis SC, Williams HB (2001) Muscle preservation using an implantable electrical system after nerve injury and repair. Microsurgery 21: 241–247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Pienaar C, Swan MC, de Jager W, Solomons M (2004) Clinical experience with end-to-side nerve transfer. J Hand Surg Br. 29(5): 438–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Ozkan T, Ozer K, Gulgonen A (2001) Restoration of sensibility in irreparable ulnar and median nerve lesions with use of sensory nerve transfer: long-term follow-up of 20 cases. J Hand Surg Am 26: 44–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Ruijs AC, Jaquet JB, van Riel WG, Daanen HA, Hovius SE (2007) Cold intolerance following median and ulnar nerve injuries: prognosis and predictors. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 32: 434–439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Lundborg G, Rosen B, Dahlin L, Danielsen N, Holmberg J (1997) Tubular versus conventional repair of median and ulnar nerves in the human forearm: early results from a prospective, randomized, clinical study. J Hand Surg Am 22: 99–106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Yuksel F, Peker F, Celikoz B (2004) Two applications of end-to-side nerve neurorrhaphy in severe upper-extremity nerve injuries. Microsurgery 24: 363–368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Mackel R, Kunesch E, Waldhor F, Struppler A (1983) Reinnervation of mechanoreceptors in the human glabrous skin following peripheral nerve repair. Brain Res 268: 49–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. De Medinaceli L, Merle M (1991) Applying ‘cell surgery’ to nerve repair: A preliminary report on the first ten human cases. J Hand Surg 16 B(5): 499–504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Van de Kar HJ, Jaquet JB, Meulstee J, Molenar CB, Schimsheimer RJ, et al. (2002) Clinical value of electrodiagnostic testing following repair of peripheral nerve lesions: a prospective study. J Hand Surg Br 27: 345–349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Birch R, Raji AR (1991) Repair of median and ulnar nerves. Primary suture is best. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73: 154–157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Vordemvenne T, Langer M, Ochman S, Raschke M, Schult M (2007) Long-term results after primary microsurgical repair of ulnar and median nerve injuries. A comparison of common score systems. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 109: 263–271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Daneyemez M, Solmaz I, Izci Y (2005) Prognostic factors for the surgical management of peripheral nerve lesions. Tohoku J Exp Med 205(3): 269–275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Bruyns CN, Jaquet JB, Schreuders TA, Kalmijn S, Kuypers PD, et al. (2003) Predictors for return to work in patients with median and ulnar nerve injuries. J Hand Surg Am 28: 28–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Jazayeri M, Ghavanini MR, Rahimi HR, Raissi GR (2003) A study of the sympathetic skin response and sensory nerve action potential after median and ulnar nerve repair. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 43: 277–279. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Mitz V, Meriaux JL, Vilain R (1984) Functional sequelae after ulnar nerve repair. Study of forty-nine cases. Ann Chir Main 3: 193–205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Donzelli R (1998) Microsurgical nervous reconstruction using autografts: a two-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Sci 42: 79–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Bolitho DG, Boustred M, Hudson DA, Hodgetts K (1999) Primary epineural repair of the ulnar nerve in children. J Hand Surg Am 24: 16–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Galanakos SP, Zoubos AB, Ignatiadis I, Papakostas I, Gerostathopoulos NE, et al. (2011) Repair of complete nerve lacerations at the forearm: An outcome study using Rosen-Lundborg protocol. Microsurgery. 2011 May 31(4): 253–262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Hurst LC, Dowd A, Sampson SP, Badalamente MA (1991) Partial lacerations of median and ulnar nerves. J Hand Surg Am 16: 207–210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Barrios C, de Pablos J (1991) Surgical management of nerve injuries of the upper extremity in children: a 15-year survey. J Pediatr Orthop 11: 641–645. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Millesi H, Meissl G, Berger A (1976) Further experience with interfascicular grafting of the median, ulnar, and radial nerves. J Bone Joint Surg Am 58: 209–218. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Millesi H, Meissl G, Berger A (1972) The interfascicular nerve-grafting of the median and ulnar nerves. J Bone Joint Surg Am 54: 727–750. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Pluchino F, Luccarelli G (1981) Interfascicular suture with nerve autografts for median, ulnar and radial nerve lesions. Ital J Neurol Sci 2: 139–146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Kalomiri DE, Soucacos PN, Beris AE (1995) Management of ulnar nerve injuries. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 264 41–4 41–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Rodriguez-Niedenführ M, Vazquez T, Parkin I, Logan B, Sañudo JR (2002) Martin-Gruber anastomosis revisited. Clin Anat 15: 129–134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Tung TH, Mackinnon SE (2010) Nerve transfers: indications, techniques, and outcomes. J Hand Surg Am 35: 332–341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Elsohemy A, Butler R, Bain JR, Fahnestock M (2009) Sensory protection of rat muscle spindles following peripheral nerve injury and reinnervation. Plast Reconstr Surg 124: 1860–1868. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Ladak A, Schembri P, Olson J, Udina E, Tyreman N, et al. (2011) Side-to-side nerve grafts sustain chronically denervated peripheral nerve pathways during axon regeneration and result in improved functional reinnervation. Neurosurgery 68: 1654–1665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Zhang S, Ji F, Tong D, Li M (2012) Side-to-side neurorrhaphy for high-level peripheral nerve injuries. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 154: 527–532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Kale SS, Glaus SW, Yee A, Nicoson MC, Hunter DA, et al. (2011) Reverse end-to-side nerve transfer: from animal model to clinical use. J Hand Surg Am 36: 1631–1639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Birch Score for grading results of high ulnar nerve repair.
(DOC)
Literature search strategy.
(DOC)