scholarly journals Ipsilateral radial nerve, median nerve, and ulnar nerve injury caused by crush syndrome due to alcohol intoxication

Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 98 (38) ◽  
pp. e17227
Author(s):  
Yuan-Wei Zhang ◽  
Cheng Ju ◽  
Xue-Lei Ke ◽  
Xin Xiao ◽  
Yan Xiao ◽  
...  
Neurosurgery ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 1120-1129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoran Roganovic

Abstract OBJECTIVE: This prospective study presents repair results after missile-caused ulnar nerve ruptures as well as factors influencing the outcomes. METHODS: Between 1991 and 1994, 128 casualties with missile-caused complete ulnar nerve injury were managed surgically in the Neurosurgical Department of the Belgrade Military Medical Academy. At least 4 years after surgery, we scored sensorimotor recovery, neurophysiological recovery, and patient judgment of the outcome. On the basis of the total score, we defined the final outcome as poor, insufficient, good, or excellent. The last two outcomes were considered to be successful. RESULTS: A successful outcome was obtained in 0% of high-level, 33.8% of intermediate-level, and 77.3% of low-level repairs (P< 0.001). On average, the nerve defect, preoperative interval, and patient age were lower for patients with a successful outcome than for those with an unsuccessful outcome (P= 0.004, P= 0.032, and P= 0.003, respectively). Worsening of the outcome was related to nerve defect longer than 4.5 cm, preoperative interval longer than 5.5 months, and age older than 23 years (P= 0.002, P= 0.034, and P= 0.023, respectively). A successful outcome occurred in 48.8% of patients repaired with direct suture and in 41.2% of patients repaired with a nerve graft (P> 0.05). A successful outcome also occurred 22.2% of combined ulnar-median nerve repairs and in 49.5% of isolated ulnar nerve repairs (P= 0.011). Repair level (P< 0.001), preoperative interval (P= 0.001), length of the nerve defect (P< 0.001), and associated median nerve rupture (P= 0.028) were independent predictors of a successful outcome. CONCLUSION: The outcome of ulnar nerve repair depends significantly on the repair level, preoperative interval, associated median nerve injury, length of the nerve defect, and age of the patient. High-level ulnar nerve repair is probably useless if performed in the classic manner.


1987 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Duinslaeger ◽  
A. DeBacker ◽  
L. Ceulemans ◽  
P. Wylock

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
pp. 2873-2875
Author(s):  
Mudassar Nazzar ◽  
Muhammad Adeel-Ur- Rehman ◽  
Rizwan Anwar ◽  
Omer Farooq Tanveer ◽  
Muhammad Abdul Hanan ◽  
...  

Objectives: To compare the complications and outcomes of lateral entry pin fixation with medial and lateral pin fixation for Gartland type III supracondylar fractures of humerus. Methodology: This prospective comparative study involving 190 patients of Gartland type III close supracondylar fractures were included. from March-2019 to Dec-2020. In all patients, initially the elbow was mobilized using the splint placed above the elbow joint at 30 to 45 degrees’ flexion. After closed reduction, lateral pinning was applied in group I and in group II lateral and medial cross pinning was applied using the standard protocol. Patients were followed for iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury, radiologic and function outcomes in-terms of loss of reduction, elbow range of motion, loss in carrying angle and functional outcomes. Results: The two groups were comparable for loss of elbow range of motion, loss of carrying angle and loss of Bauman's angle. On clinical examination, immediate post-operative ulnar nerve injury was diagnosed in 4 (4.2%) cases in group II and in no patient in group I (p-value 0.12). Satisfactory functional outcomes were achieved in 85 (89.5%) patients in group I and in 88 (92.6%) patients in group II (p-value 0.44). Conclusion: Lateral pinning provided stable fixation clinically and radiologically as compared to lateral and medial cross pinning. Keywords: Supracondylar fracture of Humerus, Iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury, Lateral pin entry, lateral and medial cross pin entry.


2011 ◽  
Vol 92 (11) ◽  
pp. 1914-1916 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mufit Akyuz ◽  
Elif Yalcin ◽  
Barin Selcuk ◽  
Burcu Onder ◽  
Levent Özçakar

1985 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 358-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne M. Wey ◽  
Gene A. Guinn

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document