A Systematic Review of Sensory Outcomes of Digital Nerve Gap Reconstruction With Autograft, Allograft, and Conduit.

BACKGROUND

Direct comparison of nerve autograft, conduit, and allograft outcomes in digital nerve injuries is limited. This study aims to compare the outcomes of nerve autografts, allografts, and conduits relative to primary repair (PR) through a systematic review.

METHODS

A review of literature related to digital nerve gap repairs was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE. Included articles were human clinical studies on digital nerve injuries repaired with nerve autograft, allograft, bovine collagen conduit, or PR. Patient characteristics, injury details, and complications were collected. Greater than 6-month outcomes included static 2-point discrimination, the British Medical Research Council Scale, or Semmes-Weinstein.

RESULTS

Four autograft, 4 allograft, 5 conduit, and 7 PR publications were included. Allografts had the most repairs (100%) with static 2-point discrimination less than 15 mm, followed by autografts (88%), conduits (72%), and PR (63%). In British Medical Research Council Scale results, autografts (88%) and allografts (86%) were similar for patients with at least S3+ sensibility, compared to conduit (77%) and PR (39%). For Semmes-Weinstein, autografts demonstrated 93% normal sensation or diminished light touch, compared to allografts (71%), PR (70%), or conduits (46%). Conduits had the highest complication rate (10.9%), followed by autografts (5.7%), allografts (3.0%), and PRs (0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although a randomized clinical trial would provide strongest evidence of superiority, this review presents the highest percentage of patients with normal to near normal sensory recovery in allograft and autograft repairs with low rates of complications. Nerve conduit studies reported a higher rate of incomplete recovery of sensation and complications.