. 2020 Feb 26;40(5):527–537. doi: 10.1002/micr.30574

Table 6.

Comparisons of higher thresholds of sensory and motor recovery in repairs reporting long‐term follow‐up to historical literature

Sensory function	PNA repairs^a	PNA, Higher thresholds of recovery ≥S3+	Autograft or conduit, Higher thresholds of recovery ≥S3+
Digital nerves	291	83%	Autograft: 70% (Frykman & Gramyk, 1991; Weber et al., 2000) Conduit: 66% (Weber et al., 2000)
Upper extremity mixed nerve	41	56%	Autograft: 40% (Frykman & Gramyk, 1991; Ruijs et al., 2005) Conduit: 8% (Chiriac et al., 2012)
Lower extremity mixed nerve	9	56%	Autograft: 14% (Roganovic & Pavlicevic, 2006)

Sensory function

PNA repairs^a

PNA, Higher thresholds of recovery ≥S3+

Autograft or conduit, Higher thresholds of recovery ≥S3+

Digital nerves

291

83%

Autograft: 70% (Frykman & Gramyk, 1991; Weber et al., 2000)

Conduit: 66% (Weber et al., 2000)

Upper extremity mixed nerve

56%

Autograft: 40% (Frykman & Gramyk, 1991; Ruijs et al., 2005)

Conduit: 8% (Chiriac et al., 2012)

Lower extremity mixed nerve

56%

Autograft: 14% (Roganovic & Pavlicevic, 2006)

Motor function	PNA repairs^a	PNA, Higher thresholds of recovery ≥M4	Autograft or Conduit, Higher thresholds recovery ≥M4
Upper extremity	39	46%	Autograft: 51–54% [7.26]
Lower extremity	6	17%	Autograft:15% (Roganovic & Pavlicevic, 2006)

PNA repairs included subjects from the primary analysis reporting at least 12 months of follow‐up for sensory repairs and 18 months follow‐up for mixed motor repairs.