Sensory Recovery Outcome after Digital Nerve Repair in Relation to Different Reconstructive Techniques: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Table 8

Finger and thumb replantation.

Treatment	Author	Pub. date	Nerves with follow-up	Age (mean)	Age (range)	Follow-up time (mean)	Follow-up time (range)	S0–S3 in %	S3+ in %	S4 in %	Glickman and Mackinnon [25]	Replanted digits
Replantation	Chow	1977	10	—	—	1.5 y	—	0	100		+	Thumb
	Gelberman	1978	35	—	4–47 y	—	—	48	26	26	+	Thumb
	Schlenker	1980	25	31 y	—	—	0.5–3 y	44	56		+	Thumb
	May	1982	23	21.2 y	—	2.5 y	—	9	78	13	+	Thumb
	Yamauchi	1982	186	—	1.2–68 y**	—	>0.5 y	37	39	24		Finger
	Yoshimura*	1982	365	—	1–68 y	—	>0.5 y	32	44	24		All
	Yamano	1985	74	33.5 y	—	—	—	4	96		+	All
	Nylander	1987	5	37.4 y	—	1.7 y	—	20	60	20	+	Finger
	Nylander	1987	3	19.3 y	—	1.7 y	—	0	100		+	Thumb
	Blomgren	1988	33	39 y	—	2.25 y	—	88	6	6	+	All
	Goldner	1989	24	23 y	—	5 y	—	5	95		+	All
	Ikeda***	1990	14	4 y	1.2–9 y	8 y	3–14 y	0	7	93		All
	Ahcan	1997	22	42 y	21–58 y	4.7 y	2–7 y	32	50	18		Finger
	Dos Remédios	2005	46	36.5 y	13–63 y	—	>1 y	19	59	22		Finger
	Walaszek	2008	59	38 y	11–74 y	3.5 y	1–6 y	20	75	5		All

Listings of treatment, author, publication date (pub. date), nerves with follow-up, age (mean and range; y: year), follow-up time (mean and range), sensory recovery (S0–3, S3+, and S4), Glickman and Mackinnon [25] (+: publication already mentioned in Glickman and Mackinnon [25]), and replanted digits (details on which digit got replanted); *: not 100% conform with the Highet classification/≤5 mm: 87 patients/6–10 mm: 92 patients/11–15 mm: 69 patients/16–20 mm: 49 patients/>20 mm 68 patients/patients with S4 could be less; **: patients with age of 20–60 made up 78% of the whole group; ***: m2PD and not s2PD used for classification.