Sensory Recovery Outcome after Digital Nerve Repair in Relation to Different Reconstructive Techniques: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Table 5
Artificial conduit.
Treatment
Author
Pub. date
Nerves with follow-up
Age (mean)
Age (range)
Follow-up time (mean)
Follow-up time (range)
Timing of repair
Gap length (mean)
Gap length (range)
S0–S3 in %
S3+ in %
S4 in %
Conduit material
Artificial conduit
Mackinnon
1990
15
30.5 y
23–38 y
1.9 y
0.9–2.7 y
Sec.
1.7 cm
0.5–3 cm
13
54
33
Polyglycolic acid
Weber
2000
46
36 ± 14 y
17–65 y
0.8 ± 0.37 y
0.25–1 y
All
0.7 ± 0.56 cm
0–3 cm
26
30
44
Polyglycolic acid
Inada*
2004
1
62 y
62 y
0.3 y
0.3 y
Sec.
2 cm
2 cm
0
0
100
Polyglycolic acid/collagen
Battiston
2005
19
40 y
15–67 y
2.5 y
0.5–6.2 y
All
2 cm
1–4 cm
31
58
11
Polyglycolic acid
Dellon*
2006
2
42 y
42 y
2.5 y
2.5 y
Sec.
3 cm
3 cm
0
0
100
Polyglycolic acid
Bushnell
2008
9
35 y
18–50 y
1.25 y
1–1.8 y
All
—
1-2 cm
0
56
44
Collagen
Lohmeyer
2009
12
38 y
12–66 y
1 y
0.25–1 y
All
1.25 cm
0.8–1.8 cm
25
42
33
Collagen
Thomsen
2010
11
30 y
16–49 y
1 y
0.5–1.4 y
Sec.
1.1 cm
0.5–2 cm
8
55
37
Collagen
Listings of treatment, author, publication date (pub. date), nerves with follow-up, age (mean and range; y: year), follow-up time (mean and range), timing of repair (all: primary and secondary; sec.: secondary), gap length (mean and range), sensory recovery (S0–3, S3+, and S4), and conduit material; *: case report.
