ArticleIrish journal of medical science2023
Digital nerve injury: to repair or not?
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The NEON (Nerve rEpair Or Not) trial: a randomized controlled trial of microsurgical repair versus nerve alignment for digital nerve injury.The British journal of surgery · 2025Trial
- Cast Or ePineural Suture for digital nerve injuries (COPS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Trials · 2026Article
- Comparative Effectiveness Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Peripheral Nerve Repair Using Direct Repair and Connector-assisted Repair.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are very few studies comparing patients with and without repair after digital nerve injury. It is still controversial whether digital nerve repair is necessary.
aimsThe aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with unilateral isolated digital nerve injury who underwent surgical repair and those who did not.
methodsSeventy-four patients with unilateral digital nerve injury were included in the study. Of these, the patients who underwent surgical repair were determined as group A (n = 42), the patients without repair as group B (n = 32), and the groups were divided into subgroups according to injury levels. Results were evaluated with a minimum follow-up of 24 months.
resultsWhen the S2PD results were evaluated overall, it was found that those who had digital nerve repair (group A) had significantly better outcomes compared to those without repair (group B) (p = 0.012). When the subgroups were evaluated according to the injury localization, no significant difference was observed at the distal levels, while it was observed that the patients who underwent repair in the proximal levels showed significantly better results (p = 0.003, p = 0.012).
conclusionIn this study, it was seen that there was no difference between the results of repair and non-repair of unilateral nerve injuries distal to the middle level of the middle phalanx, but repair is required in injuries proximal to this level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.