Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31044125›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2019

Recovery of Motor Function after Mixed and Motor Nerve Repair with Processed Nerve Allograft.

Bauback Safa, Jaimie T Shores, John V Ingari, Renata V Weber, Mickey Cho, Jozef Zoldos, Timothy R Niacaras, Leon J Nesti, Wesley P Thayer, Gregory M Buncke

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bauback SafaThe Buncke Clinic, San Francisco, Calif.
Jaimie T ShoresDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
John V IngariDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Renata V WeberMulti-Disciplinary Specialists, Rutherford, N.J.
Mickey ChoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, San Antonio Military Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Tex.
Jozef ZoldosArizona Center for Hand Surgery, Phoenix, Ariz.
Timothy R NiacarasDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, JPS Health Network, Fort Worth, Tex.
Leon J NestiWalter Reed National Military Medical Center, Clinical and Experimental Orthopaedics, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Md.
Wesley P ThayerDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
Gregory M BunckeThe Buncke Clinic, San Francisco, Calif.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSevere trauma often results in the transection of major peripheral nerves. The RANGER Registry is an ongoing observational study on the use and outcomes of processed nerve allografts (PNAs; Avance Nerve Graft, AxoGen, Inc., Alachua, Fla.). Here, we report on motor recovery outcomes for nerve injuries repaired acutely or in a delayed fashion with PNA and comparisons to historical controls in the literature.

methodsThe RANGER database was queried for mixed and motor nerve injuries in the upper extremities, head, and neck area having completed greater than 1 year of follow-up. All subjects with sufficient assessments to evaluate functional outcomes were included. Meaningful recovery was defined as ≥M3 on the Medical Research Council scale. Demographics, outcomes, and covariate analysis were performed to further characterize this subgroup.

resultsThe subgroup included 20 subjects with 22 nerve repairs. The mean ± SD (minimum-maximum) age was 38 ± 19 (16-77) years. The median repair time was 9 (0-133) days. The mean graft length was 33 ± 17 (10-70) mm with a mean follow-up of 779 ± 480 (371-2,423) days. Meaningful motor recovery was observed in 73%. Subgroup analysis showed no differences between gap lengths or mechanism of injury. There were no related adverse events.

conclusionsPNAs were safe and provided functional motor recovery in mixed and motor nerve repairs. Outcomes compare favorably to historical controls for nerve autograft and exceed those for hollow tube conduit. PNA may be considered as an option when reconstructing major peripheral nerve injuries.

Identifiers

PMID31044125
PMCPMC6467606
OpenAlexW2928586018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.