-
Intensive Care Medicine Aug 2018Although invasive intracranial devices (IIDs) are the gold standard for intracranial pressure (ICP) measurement, ultrasonography of the optic nerve sheath diameter... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Although invasive intracranial devices (IIDs) are the gold standard for intracranial pressure (ICP) measurement, ultrasonography of the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) has been suggested as a potential non-invasive ICP estimator. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of sonographic ONSD measurement for assessment of intracranial hypertension (IH) in adult patients.
METHODS
We searched on electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library) until 31 May 2018 for comparative studies that evaluated the efficacy of sonographic ONSD vs. ICP measurement with IID. Data were extracted independently by two authors. We used the QUADAS-2 tool for assessing the risk of bias (RB) of each study. A diagnostic meta-analysis following the bivariate approach and random-effects model was performed.
RESULTS
Seven prospective studies (320 patients) were evaluated for IH detection (assumed with ICP > 20 mmHg or > 25 cmHO). The accuracy of included studies ranged from 0.811 (95% CI 0.678‒0.847) to 0.954 (95% CI 0.853‒0.983). Three studies were at high RB. No significant heterogeneity was found for the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR), with I < 50% for each parameter. The pooled DOR, PLR and NLR were 67.5 (95% CI 29‒135), 5.35 (95% CI 3.76‒7.53) and 0.088 (95% CI 0.046‒0.152), respectively. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUHSROC) was 0.938. In the subset of five studies (275 patients) with IH defined for ICP > 20 mmHg, the pooled DOR, PLR and NLR were 68.10 (95% CI 26.8‒144), 5.18 (95% CI 3.59‒7.37) and 0.087 (95% CI 0.041‒0.158), respectively, while the AUHSROC was 0.932.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the wide 95% CI in our pooled DOR suggests caution, ultrasonographic ONSD may be a potentially useful approach for assessing IH when IIDs are not indicated or available (CRD42018089137, PROSPERO).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Intracranial Hypertension; Intracranial Pressure; Optic Nerve; Prospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 30019201
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-018-5305-7 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2014Raynaud's phenomenon is episodic vasospasm of the peripheral vessels. It presents as episodic colour changes of the digits (sometimes accompanied by pain and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Raynaud's phenomenon is episodic vasospasm of the peripheral vessels. It presents as episodic colour changes of the digits (sometimes accompanied by pain and paraesthesia), usually in response to cold exposure or stress. The classic triphasic colour change is white (ischaemia), then blue (de-oxygenation), then red (reperfusion). Raynaud's phenomenon can be primary (idiopathic) or secondary to several different conditions and causes. When secondary (e.g., to systemic sclerosis), it can progress to ulceration of the fingers and toes. This review deals with secondary Raynaud's phenomenon.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of surgical interventions in complicated secondary Raynaud's phenomenon? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found two studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: botulinum toxin, simple debridement/surgical toilet of ulcers, peripheral sympathectomy (digital, digital plus sympathectomy of the ulnar and/or radial artery, ligation of the ulnar artery), cervical/thoracic sympathectomy, arterial reconstruction (venous graft, arterial graft, balloon angioplasty), and amputation.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Botulinum Toxins; Debridement; Humans; Peripheral Nerves; Raynaud Disease; Sympathectomy; Ulcer
PubMed: 25322727
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022Traumatic peripheral nerve injury is common and incurs significant cost to individuals and society. Healing following direct nerve repair or repair with autograft is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Traumatic peripheral nerve injury is common and incurs significant cost to individuals and society. Healing following direct nerve repair or repair with autograft is slow and can be incomplete. Several bioengineered nerve wraps or devices have become available as an alternative to direct repair or autologous nerve graft. Nerve wraps attempt to reduce axonal escape across a direct repair site and nerve devices negate the need for a donor site defect, required by an autologous nerve graft. Comparative evidence to guide clinicians in their potential use is lacking. We collated existing evidence to guide the clinical application of currently available nerve wraps and conduits.
OBJECTIVES
To assess and compare the effects and complication rates of licensed bioengineered nerve conduits or wraps for surgical repair of traumatic peripheral nerve injuries of the upper limb. To compare effects and complications against the current gold surgical standard (direct repair or nerve autograft).
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 26 January 2022. We searched online and, where not accessible, contacted societies' secretariats to review abstracts from the British Surgical Society of the Hand, International Federation of Surgical Societies of the Hand, Federation of European Surgical Societies of the Hand, and the American Society for Peripheral Nerve from October 2007 to October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of nerve repair in the upper limb using a bioengineered wrap or conduit, with at least 12 months of follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane procedures. Our primary outcomes were 1. muscle strength and 2. sensory recovery at 24 months or more. Our secondary outcomes were 3. British Medical Research Council (BMRC) grading, 4. integrated functional outcome (Rosén Model Instrument (RMI)), 5. touch threshold, 6. two-point discrimination, 7. cold intolerance, 8. impact on daily living measured using the Disability of Arm Shoulder and Hand Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (DASH-PROM), 9. sensory nerve action potential, 10. cost of the device, and 11. adverse events (any and specific serious adverse events (further surgery)). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Five studies involving 213 participants and 257 nerve injuries reconstructed with wraps or conduits (129 participants) or standard repair (128 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Of those in the standard repair group, 119 nerve injuries were managed with direct epineurial repair, and nine autologous nerve grafts were performed. One study excluded the outcome data for the repair using an autologous nerve graft from their analysis, as it was the only autologous nerve graft in the study, so data were available for 127 standard repairs. There was variation in the functional outcome measures reported and the time postoperatively at which they were recorded. Mean sensory recovery, assessed with BMRC sensory grading (range S0 to S4, higher score considered better) was 0.03 points higher in the device group (range 0.43 lower to 0.49 higher; 1 RCT, 28 participants; very low-certainty evidence) than in the standard repair group (mean 2.75 points), which suggested little or no difference between the groups, but the evidence is very uncertain. There may be little or no difference at 24 months in mean touch thresholds between standard repair (0.81) and repair using devices, which was 0.01 higher but this evidence is also very uncertain (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 lower to 0.08 higher; 1 trial, 32 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Data were not available to assess BMRC motor grading at 24 months or more. Repair using bioengineered devices may not improve integrated functional outcome scores at 24 months more than standard techniques, as assessed by the Rosén Model Instrument (RMI; range 0 to 3, higher scores better); the CIs allow for both no important difference and a better outcome with standard repair (mean RMI 1.875), compared to the device group (0.17 lower, 95% CI 0.38 lower to 0.05 higher; P = 0.13; 2 trials, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). Data from one study suggested that the five-year postoperative outcome of RMI may be slightly improved after repair using a device (mean difference (MD) 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.38; 1 trial, 28 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies measured impact on daily living using DASH-PROM. The proportion of people with adverse events may be greater with nerve wraps or conduits than with standard techniques, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 7.15, 95% CI 1.74 to 29.42; 5 RCTs, 213 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 10 adverse events per 1000 people in the standard repair group and 68 per 1000 (95% CI 17 to 280) in the device group. The use of nerve repair devices may be associated with a greater need for revision surgery but this evidence is also very uncertain (12/129 device repairs required revision surgery (removal) versus 0/127 standard repairs; RR 7.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 39.02; 5 RCTs, 256 nerve repairs; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence, this review does not support use of currently available nerve repair devices over standard repair. There is significant heterogeneity in participants, injury pattern, repair timing, and outcome measures and their timing across studies of nerve repair using bioengineered devices, which make comparisons unreliable. Studies were generally small and at high or unclear risk of bias. These factors render the overall certainty of evidence for any outcome low or very low. The data reviewed here provide some evidence that more people may experience adverse events with use of currently available bioengineered devices than with standard repair techniques, and the need for revision surgery may also be greater. The evidence for sensory recovery is very uncertain and there are no data for muscle strength at 24 months (our primary outcome measures). We need further trials, adhering to a minimum standard of outcome reporting (with at least 12 months' follow-up, including integrated sensorimotor evaluation and patient-reported outcomes) to provide high-certainty evidence and facilitate more detailed analysis of effectiveness of emerging, increasingly sophisticated, bioengineered repair devices.
Topics: Humans; Upper Extremity; Peripheral Nerves
PubMed: 36477774
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012574.pub2 -
Current Pain and Headache Reports May 2023Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition that is associated with diminished physical function, poor mental health outcomes, and reduced quality of life. Peripheral... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition that is associated with diminished physical function, poor mental health outcomes, and reduced quality of life. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an emerging modality that has been utilized to treat LBP. The primary objective of this systematic review is to appraise the level of evidence on the efficacy of PNS for treatment of LBP.
RECENT FINDINGS
Twenty-nine articles were included in this systematic review, consisting of 828 total participants utilizing PNS as the primary modality for LBP and 173 participants using PNS as salvage or adjunctive therapy for LBP after SCS placement. Different modalities of PNS therapy were reported across studies, including conventional PNS systems stimulating the lumbar medial branch nerves, peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS), and restorative neuromuscular stimulation of the multifidus muscles. All studies consistently reported positive modest to moderate improvement in pain intensity with PNS therapy when comparing baseline pain intensity to each study's respective primary follow-up period. There was a very low GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) quality of evidence supporting this finding. Inconsistency was present in some comparative studies that demonstrated no difference between PNS therapy versus control cohorts (sham or SCS therapy alone), which therefore highlighted the potential for placebo effect. This systematic review highlights that PNS, PNFS, and neuromuscular stimulation may provide modest to moderate pain relief in patients with LBP, although evidence is currently limited due to risk of bias, clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and inconsistency in data.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Quality of Life; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Pain Management; Peripheral Nerves
PubMed: 37060395
DOI: 10.1007/s11916-023-01109-2 -
Biomedicines Apr 2023While denervation can occur with aging, peripheral nerve injuries are debilitating and often leads to a loss of function and neuropathic pain. Although injured... (Review)
Review
While denervation can occur with aging, peripheral nerve injuries are debilitating and often leads to a loss of function and neuropathic pain. Although injured peripheral nerves can regenerate and reinnervate their targets, this process is slow and directionless. There is some evidence supporting the use of neuromodulation to enhance the regeneration of peripheral nerves. This systematic review reported on the underlying mechanisms that allow neuromodulation to aid peripheral nerve regeneration and highlighted important in vivo studies that demonstrate its efficacy. Studies were identified from PubMed (inception through September 2022) and the results were synthesized qualitatively. Included studies were required to contain content related to peripheral nerve regeneration and some form of neuromodulation. Studies reporting in vivo highlights were subject to a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The results of 52 studies indicate that neuromodulation enhances natural peripheral nerve regeneration processes, but still requires other interventions (e.g., conduits) to control the direction of reinnervation. Additional human studies are warranted to verify the applicability of animal studies and to determine how neuromodulation can be optimized for the greatest functional restoration.
PubMed: 37189763
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11041145 -
Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery Jul 2021Robotic-assisted techniques are a tremendous revolution in modern surgery, and the advantages and indications were well discussed in different specialties. However,...
BACKGROUND
Robotic-assisted techniques are a tremendous revolution in modern surgery, and the advantages and indications were well discussed in different specialties. However, the use of robotic technique in plastic and reconstructive surgery is still very limited, especially in the field of peripheral nerve reconstruction. This study aims to identify current clinical applications for peripheral nerve reconstruction, and to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages to establish potential uses in the future.
METHODS
A review was conducted in the literatures from PubMed focusing on currently published robotic peripheral nerve intervention techniques. Eligible studies included related animal model, cadaveric and human studies. Reviews on robotic microsurgical technique unrelated to peripheral nerve intervention and non-English articles were excluded. The differences of wound assessment and nerve management between robotic-assisted and conventional approach were compared.
RESULTS
Total 19 studies including preclinical experimental researches and clinical reports were listed and classified into brachial plexus reconstruction, peripheral nerve tumors management, peripheral nerve decompression or repair, peripheral nerve harvesting, and sympathetic trunk reconstruction. There were three animal studies, four cadaveric studies, eight clinical series, and four studies demonstrating clinical, animal, or cadaveric studies simultaneously. In total 53 clinical cases, only 20 (37.7%) cases were successfully approached with minimal invasive and intervened robotically; 17 (32.1%) cases underwent conventional approach and the nerves were intervened robotically; 12 (22.6%) cases converted to open approach but still intervened the nerve by robot; and 4 (7.5%) cases failed to approach robotically and converted to open surgery entirely.
CONCLUSION
Robotic-assisted surgery is still in the early stage in peripheral nerve surgery. We believe the use of the robotic system in this field will develop to become popular in the future, especially in the fields that need cooperation with other specialties to provide the solutions for challenging circumstances.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Neurosurgical Procedures; Peripheral Nerves; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics
PubMed: 33401326
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1722183 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Jun 2023To compare outcomes of facial nerve repair or grafting following facial nerve-sacrificing procedures among patients treated with and without postoperative radiotherapy... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare outcomes of facial nerve repair or grafting following facial nerve-sacrificing procedures among patients treated with and without postoperative radiotherapy (RT).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, OVID, Conference Papers Index, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov.
REVIEW METHODS
Databases were searched using terms including "facial nerve," "graft," "repair," and "radiotherapy." Abstracts mentioning facial nerve repair and evaluation of facial nerve function were included for full-text review. Studies that utilized the House-Brackmann or similar validated scale for evaluation of postoperative facial nerve function were selected for review. All identified studies were included in a pooled t test analysis.
RESULTS
Twelve studies with 142 patients were included in the systematic review. All 12 studies individually demonstrated no significant difference in facial nerve outcomes between patients who received postoperative radiation and patients who did not. A pooled t test of data from all studies also demonstrated no significant difference in postoperative facial nerve function between the postoperative RT and non-RT groups (t stat = 0.92, p = .36).
CONCLUSION
This analysis, including 12 studies, demonstrated that among patients undergoing facial nerve grafting or repair, there was no significant difference in postoperative facial nerve function between postoperative RT and non-RT patients. Due to the small sample size and variability in study methods, further studies directly comparing outcomes between patients with and without postoperative RT would be beneficial.
Topics: Humans; Facial Nerve; Treatment Outcome; Facial Nerve Injuries; Face; Neurosurgical Procedures
PubMed: 36939391
DOI: 10.1002/ohn.224 -
Neuromodulation : Journal of the... Aug 2021Implantable peripheral nerve stimulation has been increasingly used to treat neuropathic pain. This neuromodulation strategy may be an alternative option for intractable... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Implantable peripheral nerve stimulation has been increasingly used to treat neuropathic pain. This neuromodulation strategy may be an alternative option for intractable trigeminal neuropathic pain; however, evidence for this treatment approach remains limited. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies of patients that underwent peripheral nerve stimulation implantation for trigeminal neuropathic pain.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Databases including, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched up to October 5, 2020. The primary outcomes were changes in pain scores and response rates of neuromodulation therapy. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed to examine the source of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies including 221 participants were evaluated. The estimated response rate of neuromodulation treatment was 61.3% (95% CI: 44.4-75.9%, I = 70.733%, p < 0.0001) at the last follow-up. The overall reduction in pain scores was 2.363 (95% CI: 1.408-3.319, I = 85.723%, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis further confirmed that stimulation target (peripheral branch vs. trigeminal ganglion vs. trigeminal nerve root) contributed the heterogeneity across enrolled studies. Better clinical outcome was associated with stimulation of the trigeminal peripheral branch (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
Peripheral nerve stimulation may be a promising approach in the management of trigeminal neuropathic pain, especially for patients intractable to conventional therapy.
Topics: Electric Stimulation Therapy; Electrodes, Implanted; Humans; Neuralgia; Trigeminal Nerve; Trigeminal Neuralgia
PubMed: 34008282
DOI: 10.1111/ner.13421 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Sep 2023Peripheral nerve injuries (PNI) are predominantly treated by anatomical repair or reconstruction with autologous nerve grafts or allografts. Motor nerve transfers for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peripheral nerve injuries (PNI) are predominantly treated by anatomical repair or reconstruction with autologous nerve grafts or allografts. Motor nerve transfers for PNI in the upper extremity are well established; however, this technique is not yet widely used in the lower extremity. This literature review presents an overview of the current options and postoperative results for nerve transfers as a treatment for nerve injury in the lower extremity.
METHODS
A systematic search in PubMed and Embase databases was performed. Full-text English articles describing surgical procedures and postoperative outcomes of nerve transfers in the lower extremity were included. The primary outcome was postoperative muscle strength measured using the British Medical Research Council (MRC) scale, with MRC> 3 considered good and postoperative return of sensation reported according to the modified Highet classification.
RESULTS
A total of 36 articles for motor nerve transfer and 7 for sensory nerve transfer were included. Sixteen articles described motor nerve transfers for treating peroneal nerve injury, 17 for femoral nerve injury, 2 for tibial nerve injury, and one for obturator nerve injury. Transfers of multiple branches to restore deep peroneal nerve function led to a good outcome in 58% of patients and 43% when a single branch was used as a donor. The transfer of multiple branches for femoral nerve or obturator nerve repair was performed in all reported patients with a good outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
The transfer of motor nerves for the recovery of PNI is a feasible technique with relatively low risks and great benefits. The correct indication, timing, and surgical technique are essential for optimizing results.
Topics: Humans; Nerve Transfer; Neurosurgical Procedures; Lower Extremity; Peripheral Nerve Injuries; Peroneal Neuropathies; Leg Injuries
PubMed: 37390541
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.011 -
PM & R : the Journal of Injury,... Nov 2023Nerve pain frequently develops following amputations and peripheral nerve injuries. Two innovative surgical techniques, targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Nerve pain frequently develops following amputations and peripheral nerve injuries. Two innovative surgical techniques, targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) and regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces (RPNI), are rapidly gaining popularity as alternatives to traditional nerve management, but their effectiveness is unclear.
LITERATURE SURVEY
A review of literature pertaining to TMR and RPNI pain results was conducted. PubMed and MEDLINE electronic databases were queried.
METHODOLOGY
Studies were included if pain outcomes were assessed after TMR or RPNI in the upper or lower extremity, both for prophylaxis performed at the time of amputation and for treatment of postamputation pain. Data were extracted for evaluation.
SYNTHESIS
Seventeen studies were included, with 14 evaluating TMR (366 patients) and three evaluating RPNI (75 patients). Of these, one study was a randomized controlled trial. Nine studies had a mean follow-up time of at least 1 year (range 4-27.6 months). For pain treatment, TMR and RPNI improved neuroma pain in 75%-100% of patients and phantom limb pain in 45%-80% of patients, averaging a 2.4-6.2-point reduction in pain scores on the numeric rating scale postoperatively. When TMR or RPNI was performed prophylactically, many patients reported no neuroma pain (48%-100%) or phantom limb pain (45%-87%) at time of follow-up. Six TMR studies reported Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores assessing pain intensity, behavior, and interference, which consistently showed a benefit for all measures. Complication rates ranged from 13% to 31%, most frequently delayed wound healing.
CONCLUSIONS
Both TMR and RPNI may be beneficial for preventing and treating pain originating from peripheral nerve dysfunction compared to traditional techniques. Randomized trials with longer term follow-up are needed to directly compare the effectiveness of TMR and RPNI with traditional nerve management techniques.
Topics: Humans; Phantom Limb; Amputation, Surgical; Neurosurgical Procedures; Neuroma; Peripheral Nerves; Muscles; Muscle, Skeletal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36965013
DOI: 10.1002/pmrj.12972