Purpose The investigators wanted to evaluate, analyze, and compare the current microsurgical repair modalities (primary repair, autograft, tube conduit, and allograft reconstruction) in achieving functional sensory recovery in inferior alveolar and lingual nerve reconstructions due to injury. Methods A literature review was undertaken to identify studies focusing on microsurgical repair of inferior alveolar and lingual nerve injuries. Included studies provided a defined sample size, the reconstruction modality, and functional sensory recovery rates. A Fischer exact test analysis was performed with groups based on the nerve and repair type, which included subgroups of specific nerve gap reconstruction modalities. Results Twelve studies were analyzed resulting in a sample consisting of 122 lingual nerve and 137 inferior alveolar nerve reconstructions. Among the nerve gap reconstructions for the lingual nerve, processed nerve allografts and autografts were found to be superior in achieving functional sensory recovery over the conduits with P values of 0.0001 and 0.0003, respectively. Among the nerve gap reconstructions for the inferior alveolar nerve, processed nerve allografts and autografts were also found to be superior in achieving functional sensory recovery over the conduits with P values of 0.027 and 0.026, respectively. Overall, nerve gap reconstructions with allografts and autografts for inferior alveolar and lingual nerve reconstruction were superior in achieving functional sensory recovery with a P value of <0.0001. Conclusions The data analyzed in this study suggest that primary tension-free repair should be performed in inferior alveolar and lingual nerve reconstructions when possible. If a bridging material is to be used, then processed nerve allografts and autografts are both superior to conduits and noninferior to each other. In addition, allografts do not have the complications related to autograft harvesting such as permanent donor site morbidity. Based on the conclusions drawn from these data, we provide a reproducible operative technique for inferior alveolar and lingual nerve reconstruction.

Background: Although blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) is recognized as a risk factor for trauma morbidity and mortality, little is described regarding similar cerebrovascular injury (CVI) in patients with penetrating wounds. The authors aim to characterize these injuries in the craniofacial self-inflicted gunshot wound (SIGSW) population. Methods: An institutional review board (IRB)-approved retrospective nstudy was conducted on patients presenting to the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center with SIGSWs between 2007 and 2016. All CVIs were categorized by location, type, and associated neurologic deficits. Demographic data, patient characteristics, additional studies, and long-term outcomes were collected. A multivariate analysis determining independent predictors of CVI in the SIGSW population was performed. Results: Of the 73 patients with SIGSWs, 5 (6.8%) had CVIs separate from the bullet/cavitation tract (distant CVIs) and 9 had CVIs along the bullet/cavitation tract (in-tract CVIs). A total of 55.6% of in-tract and 40% of distant injuries were missed on initial radiology read. One distant CVI patient suffered a stroke during admission. The anterior to posterior gunshot wound trajectory was positively associated with distant CVIs when compared with no CVIs (P ¼ 0.01). Vessel dissection was more prevalent in patients with distant CVIs, when compared against patients with in-tract CVIs (P ¼ 0.02).Conclusions: Nearly 20% of craniofacial SIGSW patients have CVIs and 6.8% have BCVI-like injuries, which is 2-to-6-fold times higher than traditional BCVIs. Craniofacial SIGSWs serve as an independent screening criterion with comparable screening yields; the authors recommend radiographic screening for these patients with particular scrutiny for CVIs as they are frequently missed on initial radiographic interpretations.

Background The sural nerve is the most frequently harvested nerve autograft and is most often biopsied in the workup of peripheral neuropathy. While the complication types associated with these two procedures are well known, their clinical significance is poorly understood and there is a paucity of data regarding the complication rates. Methods Pubmed search identified studies regarding complications after sural nerve harvest and biopsy. The data was grouped into sensory deficits, chronic pain, sensory symptoms, wound infections, wound complications, other postoperative complications, and complications impacting daily life. The incidence of each complication was calculated, and a chi‐square analysis was performed to determine if there were any differences between nerve biopsies and graft harvest with respect to each complication. Results Twelve studies yielded 478 sural nerve procedures. Sensory deficits occurred at a rate of 92.9%, chronic pain at 19.7%, sensory symptoms at 41.1%, wound infections at 5.7%, noninfectious wound complications at 7.8%, and impact on daily life at 5.0%. The differences in wound infections, sensory symptoms, and impact on daily life between biopsies versus graft excisions were found to reach statistical significance (p < .05). Conclusions Sural nerve excisions can cause chronic postoperative donor‐site complications. Given these complications, alternative available mediums for nerve reconstruction should be explored and utilized wherever appropriate. If an alternative medium is unavailable and nerve autograft must be harvested for nerve reconstruction, then patients should be counseled about risks for developing donor site complications that may negatively affect quality of life.

Background:Breast numbness is a recognized problem following mastectomy and subsequent reconstruction. Contemporary literature acknowledges the positive role of breast neurotization, but it is characterized by a variety of technical approaches and substantial heterogeneity with respect to the degree of recovered sensibility that remains suboptimal in comparison with other sensory nerve reconstructions. This study’s purpose was to provide an anatomical basis for observed inconsistencies and therein provide a principle that can be used to develop a technical approach that will optimize sensory recovery.Methods:Anatomical dissections on 6 fresh cadavers, that is, 12 hemi-abdominal flaps and 12 hemi-chest dissections, were performed. The technical aspects of harvesting the abdominal flap with a nerve target, that is, inclusion of a sensory nerve branch only, recipient nerves in the chest, and the applications of allograft for acquired nerve gap reconstruction were investigated.Results:Abdominal flaps that include sensory-only intercostal nerve 10–12 segments and identification of recipient chest wall intercostal nerves 2–4 could be consistently performed. The dissection and extraction of the donor sensory nerve target allowed preservation of the motor rectus innervation. The acquired nerve gap was easily bridged by an interposing allograft, allowing free arch of rotation for flap inset, suitable for either single or dual neurotization.Conclusions:We provide a likely anatomical explanation for suboptimal sensory recovery after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast neurotization, as mixed intercostal autograft is prohibitive to maximal sensory recovery. Breast neurotization with allograft that bridges sensory donor intercostal nerves to sensory recipient intercostal nerves should anatomically optimize restoration of breast sensibility.

Background: Symptomatic neuromas can cause significant chronic pain and negatively impact quality of life. Symptoms often persist despite narcotics and nonoperative interventions, which are largely ineffective. With the opioid crisis, treatments for chronic pain that limit narcotics are needed. Traditional surgical options may result in neuroma recurrence. Autograft reconstruction often results in donor-site morbidity. Processed nerve allografts facilitate axonal growth, nerve regeneration, and eliminate donor-site morbidity. Methods: A literature review was performed to identify studies in which chronic neuroma pain was treated with excision and processed nerve allograft reconstruction. PubMed was queried, and data from the studies were grouped into treatment effective and ineffective groups. Statistical analyses were performed on these groups, and further subgroup analysis was performed on overall change of preoperative and postoperative pain scores using a paired t test. Results: Seven studies fulfilled inclusion criteria yielding 42 patients. Greater than 90% of patients had improvement of pain postoperatively. The preoperative and postoperative pain scores could be determined for 40 patients. The mean preoperative score was 7.9, and the mean postoperative score was 3.54. These results were statistically significant using a paired t test with a P value of <0.001. Conclusions: Chronic pain resulting from symptomatic neuromas can be treated with neuroma excision and nerve stump reconstruction with processed nerve allograft. This obviates autograft-associated donor-site morbidity and provides a platform to potentially restore sensation to the involved nerve whenever a distal nerve end is available. Addressing the root cause is an important paradigm shift for treating symptomatic neuromas.