Search

Background: Nerve transfers represent a new paradigm in the treatment of nerve injuries. Their current level of adoption among surgeons is unknown. This study evaluates the incidence of nerve transfers on case logs of board-eligible plastic surgeons over the past 14 years and surveys practicing nerve surgeons regarding their use of this technique. Methods: We queried the American Board of Plastic Surgery case log database for all nerve reconstruction Current Procedural Terminology codes from 2008 to 2021 and assessed trends and relationships between geographic region, examination year, and nerve transfer use. We surveyed nerve surgery professional societies to assess trends in practice, compared with a 2017 survey. Results: A total of 1959 nerve reconstruction cases were logged by 738 candidates from 2008 to 2021. Twelve percent of cases included nerve transfers. The proportion of nerve transfer codes (Z = −11.57; P <.0001) and the proportion of candidates performing nerve transfers (Z = −9.21, P <.0001) increased over the study period. Nerve transfers were associated with geographic region (χ2 = 25.826, P =.0002), with most cases performed in the Midwest (26.4%). A higher proportion of practicing nerve surgeons reported performing nerve transfers in this survey than in our 2017 survey (χ2 = 16.7, P <.001). Conclusions: There has been an increase in nerve transfers logged in the past 14 years by board-eligible plastic surgeons, as well as increased use among currently practicing nerve surgeons. Although nerve transfer use is increasing among both plastic and orthopedic surgeons, a greater proportion of nerve reconstructions include nerve transfers in the plastic surgery cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nerve injuries remain a challenging complication after shoulder surgery. While most resolve spontaneously, some require surgical intervention. This study describes the characteristics of patients sustaining nerve injuries following shoulder surgery, evaluates referral patterns to nerve surgeons, and characterizes nerve surgeries performed and their outcomes. Increased awareness of these injuries allows patients and providers to be better informed regarding the appropriate management when these complications occur. Methods: A retrospective review of referrals with nerve injuries following shoulder surgery between 2007 and 2015 was performed. The final analysis included 65 patients. Data reviewed included demographics, procedure and anesthesia type, and diagnosis of nerve injury. Time to referral to nerve surgeon and proportional changes in the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores were determined. Outcomes were categorized as failed, partially successful, and successful based on final follow-up. Results: Patients were referred following arthroscopic shoulder surgeries (35.4%), shoulder arthroplasties (24.6%), open shoulder procedures (21.5%), and combined open and arthroscopic procedures (18.5%). The mean time to referral was 7.6 months. Nerve injuries involved brachial plexus (33) and individual and multiple peripheral nerve branches (23 and 7, respectively). Twenty-five (38%) nerve injuries demonstrated spontaneous recovery. Thirty-five patients underwent surgical intervention, of which 27 were successful, 3 were partially successful, and 3 failed. Conclusions: This is the largest series of patients with iatrogenic nerve injury following shoulder surgeries to date. Our data demonstrate a lack of timely referral to nerve surgeons, especially after arthroscopy. There continues to be a variable injury pattern even among similar surgeries. Despite this, timely surgical intervention, when indicated, can lead to favorable outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) compression in the forearm without motor paralysis is a challenging clinical diagnosis. This retrospective study evaluated the clinical assessment, diagnostic studies, and outcomes following surgical decompression of the PIN in the forearm. Methods: This study reviewed 182 patients' medical charts following PIN decompression between 2000 and 2020 by a single surgeon. After exclusion of combined nerve entrapments, polyneuropathy, motor palsy, or lateral epicondylitis, the study included 14 patients. Data collected included: clinical presentation and pain drawings, provocative testing, functional outcomes, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores. Results: There were 15 PIN decompressions (14 patients, mean follow-up = 11.9 months). Clinical presentation included pain (n = 14) (proximal dorsal forearm, n = 14; distal forearm over radial sensory nerve, n = 3) and positive clinical tests (sensory collapse test over the radial tunnel, n = 8; pain with forearm pronation and compression over the radial tunnel, n = 10; Tinel sign, n = 5). Postoperatively, there were significant improvements in Visual Analog Scale pain scores (6.7 to 3.3, P =.0006), quality-of-life scores (74.7 to 32.7, P =.0001), and DASH scores (46.3 to 33.6, P =.02). Conclusions: The PIN compression in the forearm without motor paralysis is a clinical diagnosis supported by pain drawings, pain quality, and provocative tests. Patients with persistent, therapy-resistant dorsal forearm pain should be evaluated for PIN compression. Surgical decompression provides statistically significant quantifiable improvement in pain and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]