-
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal... Dec 2019Ultrasound (US) is an increasingly popular imaging modality currently used both in clinics and operating rooms. The purpose of this review is to appraise literature... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Ultrasound (US) is an increasingly popular imaging modality currently used both in clinics and operating rooms. The purpose of this review is to appraise literature describing traditional lateral ankle stabilization techniques and discuss potential advantages of US-guided ankle lateral ligament stabilization. In addition, albeit limited, we will describe our experiences in perfecting this technique.
RECENT FINDINGS
To date, the modified open Broström-Gould technique remains as the gold standard surgical treatment for chronic ankle instability (CAI). In the past decade, modifications of this technique have been done, from a combination of arthroscopic and open procedure to an all-inside arthroscopic technique with a goal of minimizing wound complications, better outcomes, and earlier return to activity. Recently, the use of US as an adjunct to surgical procedures has gained popularity and several novel techniques have been described. The use of US in lateral ankle stabilization could allow accurate placement of the suture anchor at the anatomical attachment of the anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) without iatrogenic damage to the neurovascular structures such as anterolateral malleolar artery, superficial peroneal nerve, and sural nerve. In summary, the use of US in ankle lateral ligament stabilization is a promising new micro-invasive technique. The theoretical advantages of US-guided ankle lateral ligament stabilization include direct visualization of desired anatomical landmarks and structures which could increase accuracy, decrease iatrogenic neurovascular damage, minimize wound complications, and improve outcomes.
PubMed: 31749104
DOI: 10.1007/s12178-019-09592-0 -
European Journal of Neurology Feb 2022Daily management of patients with foot drop due to peroneal nerve entrapment varies between a purely conservative treatment and early surgery, with no high-quality... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Daily management of patients with foot drop due to peroneal nerve entrapment varies between a purely conservative treatment and early surgery, with no high-quality evidence to guide current practice. Electrodiagnostic (EDX) prognostic features and the value of imaging in establishing and supplementing the diagnosis have not been clearly established.
METHODS
We performed a literature search in the online databases MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Of the 42 unique articles meeting the eligibility criteria, 10 discussed diagnostic performance of imaging, 11 reported EDX limits for abnormal values and/or the value of EDX in prognostication, and 26 focused on treatment outcome.
RESULTS
Studies report high sensitivity and specificity of both ultrasound (varying respectively from 47.1% to 91% and from 53% to 100%) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; varying respectively from 31% to 100% and from 73% to 100%). One comparative trial favoured ultrasound over MRI. Variable criteria for a conduction block (>20%-≥50) were reported. A motor conduction block and any baseline compound motor action potential response were identified as predictors of good outcome. Based predominantly on case series, the percentage of patients with good outcome ranged 0%-100% after conservative treatment and 40%-100% after neurolysis. No study compared both treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Ultrasound and MRI have good accuracy, and introducing imaging in the standard diagnostic workup should be considered. Further research should focus on the role of EDX in prognostication. No recommendation on the optimal treatment strategy of peroneal nerve entrapment can be made, warranting future randomized controlled trials.
Topics: Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Neurosurgical Procedures; Peroneal Neuropathies; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 34662481
DOI: 10.1111/ene.15145 -
Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria Sep 2023The distinction between sensory neuronopathies (SN), which is by definition purely sensory, and sensory polyneuropathies (SP) and sensory multineuropathies (SM) is...
BACKGROUND
The distinction between sensory neuronopathies (SN), which is by definition purely sensory, and sensory polyneuropathies (SP) and sensory multineuropathies (SM) is important for etiologic investigation and prognosis estimation. However, this task is often challenging in clinical practice. We hypothesize that F-wave assessment might be helpful, since it is able to detect subtle signs of motor involvement, which are found in SP and SM, but not in SN.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the present study was to determine whether F-waves are useful to distinguish SN from SP and SM.
METHODS
We selected 21 patients with SP (12 diabetes mellitus, 4 transthyretin familial amyloid polyneuropathy, 4 others), 22 with SM (22 leprosy), and 26 with SN (13 immune-mediated, 10 idiopathic, 3 others) according to clinical-electrophysiological-etiological criteria. For every subject, we collected data on height and performed 20 supramaximal distal stimuli in median, ulnar, peroneal, and tibial nerves, bilaterally, to record F-waves. Latencies (minimum and mean) and persistences were compared across groups using the Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni tests. -values < 0.05 were considered significant.
RESULTS
All groups were age, gender, and height-matched. Overall, there were no significant between-group differences regarding F-wave latencies. In contrast, F-wave persistence was able to stratify the groups. Peroneal F-wave persistence was higher, bilaterally, in the SN group compared to SM and SP ( < 0.05). In addition, F-waves persistence of the ulnar and tibial nerves was also helpful to separate SN from SP ( < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
F-wave persistence of the peroneal nerves might be an additional and useful diagnostic tool to differentiate peripheral sensory syndromes.
Topics: Humans; Neural Conduction; Median Nerve; Ulnar Nerve; Tibial Nerve; Peroneal Nerve; Polyneuropathies; Syndrome; Peripheral Nerves
PubMed: 37793400
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1772599 -
Burns & Trauma 2022Nerve transfer is an important clinical surgical procedure for nerve repair by the coaptation of a healthy donor nerve to an injured nerve. Usually, nerve transfer is...
BACKGROUND
Nerve transfer is an important clinical surgical procedure for nerve repair by the coaptation of a healthy donor nerve to an injured nerve. Usually, nerve transfer is performed in an end-to-end manner, which will lead to functional loss of the donor nerve. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of 3D-printed branch nerve conduits in nerve transfer.
METHODS
Customized branch conduits were constructed using gelatine-methacryloyl by 3D printing. The nerve conduits were characterized both and . The efficacy of 3D-printed branch nerve conduits in nerve transfer was evaluated in rats through electrophysiology testing and histological evaluation.
RESULTS
The results obtained showed that a single nerve stump could form a complex nerve network in the 3D-printed multibranch conduit. A two-branch conduit was 3D printed for transferring the tibial nerve to the peroneal nerve in rats. In this process, the two branches were connected to the distal tibial nerve and peroneal nerve. It was found that the two nerves were successfully repaired with functional recovery.
CONCLUSIONS
It is implied that the two-branch conduit could not only repair the peroneal nerve but also preserve partial function of the donor tibial nerve. This work demonstrated that 3D-printed branch nerve conduits provide a potential method for nerve transfer.
PubMed: 35441080
DOI: 10.1093/burnst/tkac010 -
Foot & Ankle International Sep 2020The anterocentral portal is not a standard portal in anterior ankle arthroscopy due to its proximity to the anterior neurovascular bundle. However, it provides certain...
BACKGROUND
The anterocentral portal is not a standard portal in anterior ankle arthroscopy due to its proximity to the anterior neurovascular bundle. However, it provides certain advantages, including a wide field of vision, and portal changes become redundant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the neurovascular complications after anterior ankle arthroscopy using the anterocentral portal.
METHODS
We retrospectively identified patients who had undergone anterior ankle arthroscopy with an anterocentral portal at our institution from 2013 to 2018. Medical record data were reviewed and patients were invited for clinical follow-up, where a clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing for the deep peroneal nerve, and ultrasonography of the structures at risk were performed. A total of 101 patients (105 arthroscopies) were identified and evaluated at a mean follow-up of 31.5 ± 17.7 months.
RESULTS
Leading indications to surgery were heterogeneous and included anterior impingement (48.6%), osteochondral lesions of the talus (24.8%), chronic ankle instability (14.3%), and fractures (8.6%). The overall complication rate was 7.6%, and no major complications were observed. In 1.9% (2/105) of the cases, the complications were associated with the anterocentral portal and included injury to the medial branch of the superficial nerve (1/105) and to the deep peroneal nerve (1/105). Injury to the deep peroneal nerve was associated with a loss of detection and nociception. There were no injuries to the anterior tibial artery. In 41.9% (44/105) of the cases, only 1 working portal was used in addition to the anterocentral portal, and in 19% (20/105) the anterolateral portal could be avoided. Ultrasonography confirmed the integrity of the deep peroneal nerve, the medial branch of the superficial peroneal nerve, and the anterior tibial artery in all patients. Patients with nerve injuries associated with the anterocentral portal showed no signs of neuroma or pseudoaneurysm.
CONCLUSION
Using a standardized technique, the anterocentral portal in ankle arthroscopy is safe with a low number of neurovascular injuries and can be recommended as a standard portal. The anterolateral portal remains associated with a high number of injuries to the superficial peroneal nerve.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III, retrospective cohort study.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Ankle Joint; Arthroscopy; Cohort Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Peroneal Nerve; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Young Adult
PubMed: 32546005
DOI: 10.1177/1071100720931095 -
An overview of common peroneal nerve dysfunction and systematic assessment of its relation to falls.International Orthopaedics Dec 2022Compression of the peroneal nerve is recognized as a common cause of falls. The superficial course of the peroneal nerve exposes it to trauma and pressure from common... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Compression of the peroneal nerve is recognized as a common cause of falls. The superficial course of the peroneal nerve exposes it to trauma and pressure from common activities such as crossing of legs. The nerve can be exposed also to distress due to metabolic problems such as diabetes. The purpose of our manuscript is to review common peroneal nerve dysfunction symptoms and treatment as well as provide a systematic assessment of its relation to falls.
METHODS
We pooled the existing literature from PubMed and included studies (n = 342) assessing peroneal nerve damage that is related in any way to falls. We excluded any studies reporting non-original data, case reports and non-English studies.
RESULTS
The final systematic assessment included 4 articles. Each population studied had a non-negligible incidence of peroneal neuropathy. Peroneal pathology was found to be consistently associated with falls.
CONCLUSION
The peroneal nerve is an important nerve whose dysfunction can result in falls. This article reviews the anatomy and care of the peroneal nerve. The literature review highlights the strong association of this nerve's pathology with falls.
Topics: Humans; Peroneal Nerve; Peroneal Neuropathies; Incidence
PubMed: 36169699
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-022-05593-w -
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 -
Surgical Neurology International 2022Most peroneal nerve injuries resulting in foot drop are secondary to trauma or iatrogenic. Foot drop can occur due to potential complications from the hip, lumbosacral...
BACKGROUND
Most peroneal nerve injuries resulting in foot drop are secondary to trauma or iatrogenic. Foot drop can occur due to potential complications from the hip, lumbosacral spine, and knee surgeries, which are critical to diagnose and manage.
METHODS
We reviewed our foot drop patients' data to determine the incidence and iatrogenic causes of the injury and managed surgically by neurolysis of the peroneal nerve and transfer of functional fascicles of either the superficial peroneal or the tibial nerve to the deep peroneal nerve.
RESULTS
We found 28 iatrogenic foot drop patients who have had surgery and postoperative follow-up evaluations with us. Before the onset of foot drop, all except one (27 of 28) patient have had surgeries in other clinics before presenting to our institution. Foot drop in one patient was due to infection and hip wound after he was intubated and stayed in ICU for 4 weeks. Thirteen of the 28 patients have had lumbosacral (L3-4, L4-L5, and L5-S1) fusion or laminectomy, eight have had hip surgery, and five have had knee surgery. One patient had a fasciotomy due to compartment syndrome and another patient had two previous surgeries for posterior tibial entrapment and tarsal tunnel syndrome at other institutions. NCS and EMG reports showed that these patients had injuries to the peroneal or tibial nerve after their prior surgeries. One patient had a femoral nerve injury. Preoperatively, 10 patients had severe foot drop with muscle weakness and a functional grade of 0/5; 16 patients had grades ranging from 1 to 2/5; and two patients had 3/5. Overall, 23 of the 28 patients (83%) had improvement in their ankle dorsiflexion with anti-gravity and regained a healthier gait after the decompression, neurolysis, and nerve transfer at our clinic.
CONCLUSION
Twenty-three of the 28 (83%) iatrogenic foot drop patients in this report regained a healthier gait with improved ankle dorsiflexion and anti-gravity after the neurolysis, and nerve transfer of the peroneal or tibial nerve and transfer of functional fascicles of either the superficial peroneal or the tibial nerve to the deep peroneal nerve at our clinic.
PubMed: 35855127
DOI: 10.25259/SNI_146_2022 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Feb 2023The peroneal nerve is one of the most commonly injured nerves of the lower extremity. Nerve grafting has been shown to result in poor functional outcomes. The aim of...
The peroneal nerve is one of the most commonly injured nerves of the lower extremity. Nerve grafting has been shown to result in poor functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare anatomical feasibility as well as axon count of the tibial nerve motor branches and the tibialis anterior motor branch for a direct nerve transfer to reconstruct ankle dorsiflexion. In an anatomical study on 26 human body donors (52 extremities) the muscular branches to the lateral (GCL) and the medial head (GCM) of the gastrocnemius muscle, the soleus muscle (S) as well as the tibialis anterior muscle (TA) were dissected, and each nerve's external diameter was measured. Nerve transfers from each of the three donor nerves (GCL, GCM, S) to the recipient nerve (TA) were performed and the distance between the achievable coaptation site and anatomic landmarks was measured. Additionally, nerve samples were taken from eight extremities, and antibody as well immunofluorescence staining were performed, primarily evaluating axon count. The average diameter of the nerve branches to the GCL was 1.49 ± 0.37, to GCM 1.5 ± 0.32, to S 1.94 ± 0.37 and to TA 1.97 ± 0.32 mm, respectively. The distance from the coaptation site to the TA muscle was 43.75 ± 12.1 using the branch to the GCL, 48.31 ± 11.32 for GCM, and 19.12 ± 11.68 mm for S, respectively. The axon count for TA was 1597.14 ± 325.94, while the donor nerves showed 297.5 ± 106.82 (GCL), 418.5 ± 62.44 (GCM), and 1101.86 ± 135.92 (S). Diameter and axon count were significantly higher for S compared to GCL as well as GCM, while regeneration distance was significantly lower. The soleus muscle branch exhibited the most appropriate axon count and nerve diameter in our study, while also reaching closest to the tibialis anterior muscle. These results indicate the soleus nerve transfer to be the favorable option for the reconstruction of ankle dorsiflexion, in comparison to the gastrocnemius muscle branches. This surgical approach can be used to achieve a biomechanically appropriate reconstruction, in contrast to tendon transfers which generally only achieve weak active dorsiflexion.
PubMed: 36836578
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13020344