2014
DOI: 10.1002/micr.22302
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of sensory recovery after reconstruction of digital nerves of the hand using muscle-in-vein conduits in comparison to nerve suture or nerve autografting

Abstract: Muscle-in-vein conduits may be a good alternative solution to autografts for the reconstruction of digital nerves, since no significant differences could be demonstrated between the two methods.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
60
0
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
60
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Some earlier experimental (Brunelli et al., 1993) and recent clinical work (Manoli, Schulz, et al., 2014) did, however, not report any inferiority of MVGs in comparison to ANGs especially when shorter nerve defects have been bridged. Despite the fact, however, that MVGs also resulted in considerable recovery of fine and gross motor skills in our study, the multimodal analysis of functional recovery performed was comprehensive and therefore eventually more sensitive to otherwise undetectable variations between the graft types.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Some earlier experimental (Brunelli et al., 1993) and recent clinical work (Manoli, Schulz, et al., 2014) did, however, not report any inferiority of MVGs in comparison to ANGs especially when shorter nerve defects have been bridged. Despite the fact, however, that MVGs also resulted in considerable recovery of fine and gross motor skills in our study, the multimodal analysis of functional recovery performed was comprehensive and therefore eventually more sensitive to otherwise undetectable variations between the graft types.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Usage of ANGs, however, leads to considerable donor side morbidity. Therefore, autologous muscle‐in‐vein grafts (MVGs), leading only to minor donor side morbidity (Manoli, Schulz, Stahl, Jaminet, & Schaller, 2014), represent promising alternative digital nerve grafts (Manoli, Schulz, et al., 2014; Marcoccio & Vigasio, 2010; Tos, Battiston, Ciclamini, Geuna, & Artiaco, 2012) as do several clinically approved biodegradable nerve guidance conduits (NGCs) (Bertleff, Meek, & Nicolai, 2005; Donoghoe, Rosson, & Dellon, 2007; Lohmeyer, Siemers, Machens, & Mailander, 2009; Meyer et al., 2016). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In spite of the effectiveness of some types of biological nerve guides, some of which have been successfully translated to the clinics (Chiu and Strauch, 1990;Pereira et al, 1991;Marcoccio and Vigasio 2010;Tos et al, 2012;Manoli et al, 2014), most research along the last 30 years has been dedicated to artificial scaffolds based on the recent advancements in bio-nanotechnologies. A number of innovative artificial nerve guides have been developed and this body of experimental research has been mainly based on experiments made using the SNI model aimed at comparing, in a pre-clinical view, the effectiveness of different types of scaffolds (Rodriguez et al, 2000;Varejao et -9 -al., 2003;Dodla and Bellamkonda, 2008;Carriel et al, 2013;Haastert-Talini et al, 2013;Reid et al, 2013;Johansson and Dahlin, 2014).…”
Section: Tubulization Reconstruction Of Substance Defectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of autologous nerve grafts, which promise the most predictable outcomes, has inherent problems such as potential neuroma formation, sensory loss, and tingling sensation at the donor site. Therefore, various materials have been evaluated as alternative treatments for nerve grafts, including non‐synthetic or synthetic conduits, allogenic grafts, and other autologous tissue (Beigi, Ghasemi‐Mobarakeh, Prabhakaran, et al, ; Hundepool, Bulstra, Kotsougiani, et al, ; Manoli, Schulz, Stahl, Jaminet, & Schaller, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%