Skip to main content
. 2012 Oct 17;7(10):e47928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047928

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.