Comparing Primary With Secondary Repair of Based on Electrodiagnostic Assessment and Clinical Examination

Isfahan University of Medical Sciences46 enrolled

Overview

The purpose of this study is to determine which surgical approach is better for clean transection injury in peripheral nerves in outcomes.

Treatment of injuries to major nerve trunks in the hand and upper extremity remains a major and challenging reconstructive problem. Our goal was to compare primary versus secondary repair of median and\\or ulnar nerve by electrodiagnostic assessment and clinical examination.

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Allocation

NON_RANDOMIZED

Purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

SINGLE

Enrollment

Conditions

Peripheral Nerve Injury

Interventions

primary repairPROCEDURE

during the first days,the nerve was conducted to repair as end to end (epi-epineurium, epi-epineurium) anastomosis. This was performed following the repair of present tendons and muscle injuries.

secondary repairPROCEDURE

after one week,the nerve was conducted to repair as end to end (epi-epineurium, epi-epineurium) anastomosis. This was performed following the repair of present tendons and muscle injuries.

Eligibility

Sex: ALLHealthy volunteers:

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: * patients with confirmed clean transection injury between shoulder and wrist Exclusion Criteria: * crush injuries

Locations (1)

Al-zahra university hospital

Isfahan, Iran

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

motor function

identification of motor level were done based on British Medical Research Council guided.The abductor pollicis brevis (APB) was used for the median nerve and the abductor digiti minimi (ADM) for the ulnar nerve. as follows: 0, M0, M1 and M2; 1, M3; 2, M4.

Time frame: at 18 months post-operatively

Secondary Outcomes

sensory recovery

identification of motor and sensory level were done based on British Medical Research Council guided.The abductor pollicis brevis (APB) was used for the median nerve and the abductor digiti minimi (ADM) for the ulnar nerve. The results scored as follows: 0, S0, S1 and S2; 1, S3; 2, S4 and S5.

Time frame: at 18 months post-operatively

nerve conduction velocity

For electrodiagnostic assessment, nerve conduction velocity (NCV) was tested as motor and sensory. The results categorized according to the Yale sensory scale and the severity of sensation and function of the nerves was scored as follows: 0, no sensation; 1, decreased or abnormal sensation; 2, normal sensation.

Time frame: at 18 months post-operatively

electromyography

For an EMG, a needle electrode was inserted through the skin into the muscle which injured nerve supplied. The presence, size and shape of the waveform registered and the ability of the muscle to respond when the nerves were stimulated. Also these results scored as follows: 0, no activity; 1, few or single movement; 2, partial activity; 3, full activity.

Time frame: at 18 months post-operatively

Data from ClinicalTrials.gov

This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.