“Donor Site Morbidity After Sural Nerve Grafting: A Systematic Review”

Author(s):  
Ravinder Bamba ◽  
Scott N. Loewenstein ◽  
Joshua M. Adkinson
Hand ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 621-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyuma A. Leland ◽  
Beina Azadgoli ◽  
Daniel J. Gould ◽  
Mitchel Seruya

Background: The purpose of this study was to systematically review outcomes following intercostal nerve (ICN) transfer for restoration of elbow flexion, with a focus on identifying the optimal number of nerve transfers. Methods: A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies describing ICN transfers to the musculocutaneous nerve (MCN) for traumatic brachial plexus injuries in patients 16 years or older. Demographics were recorded, including age, time to operation, and level of brachial plexus injury. Muscle strength was scored based upon the British Medical Research Council scale. Results: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria for a total of 196 patients. Either 2 (n = 113), 3 (n = 69), or 4 (n = 11) ICNs were transferred to the MCN in each patient. The groups were similar with regard to patient demographics. Elbow flexion ≥M3 was achieved in 71.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.1%-79.7%) of patients with 2 ICNs, 67.7% (95% CI, 55.3%-78.0%) of patients with 3 ICNs, and 77.0% (95% CI, 44.9%-93.2%) of patients with 4 ICNs ( P = .79). Elbow flexion ≥M4 was achieved in 51.1% (95% CI, 37.4%-64.6%) of patients with 2 ICNs, 42.1% (95% CI, 29.5%-55.9%) of patients with 3 ICNs, and 48.4% (95% CI, 19.2%-78.8%) of patients with 4 ICNs ( P = .66). Conclusions: Previous reports have described 2.5 times increased morbidity with each additional ICN harvest. Based on the equivalent strength of elbow flexion irrespective of the number of nerves transferred, 2 ICNs are recommended to the MCN to avoid further donor-site morbidity.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artem Kosulin ◽  
◽  
Dmitriy Elyakin ◽  

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (09) ◽  
pp. 630-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicky Kang ◽  
Emilie Robinson ◽  
Eric Barker ◽  
Anuja Antony

Background The transverse upper gracilis (TUG) flap has gained increasing acceptance as a reliable option for breast reconstruction, specifically in patients without adequate abdominal tissue. Three major flap designs of the upper gracilis flap have been proposed to balance volume needs with flap vascularity. A systematic review was performed to identify outcomes of the major gracilis flaps: TUG, vertical-transverse upper gracilis (V-TUG), and longitudinal gracilis myocutaneous (LGM) flaps. This study is the first and only systematic review to date reviewing the variations of the upper gracilis flap in microsurgical breast reconstruction. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed database from 1966 through 2015. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Outcomes assessed included total flap volumes, additional breast procedures to achieve intended breast volume, and complication rates. Results A total of 485 gracilis-type flaps were performed in 335 patients. V-TUG flaps provided the largest mean flap weights and did not require additional lipofilling or implant placement, whereas the majority of TUG flaps (50.6%) required additional fat grafting or implant placements. All flap types demonstrated a low incidence of donor-site morbidity. Overall flap loss rate was low; TUG flaps reported 2.3% total and 2.0% partial flap losses, while V-TUG and LGM flaps reported no flap losses. Conclusion This review found V-TUG yielded highest mean flap weights and did not require additional breast augmentation procedures as compared with the TUG. Also, the V-TUG was a safer donor-site option with fewer flap and donor-site morbidities.


BMC Surgery ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Hallgren ◽  
Anders Björkman ◽  
Anette Chemnitz ◽  
Lars B Dahlin

2006 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank F. A. IJpma ◽  
Jean-Phillipe A. Nicolai ◽  
Marcel F. Meek

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document