ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Comparative Effectiveness Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Peripheral Nerve Repair Using Direct Repair and Connector-assisted Repair.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collagen epineurial substitute-assisted neurorrhaphy is superior to conventional end-to-end neurorrhaphy in a rat model of peripheral nerve injury.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Sutureless Hydrogel Device for Peripheral Nerve Repair.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- A Novel Atraumatic Polymer-Assisted Peripheral Nerve Repair Device Compared With Microsurgical Neurorrhaphy.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
- Protecting the Nerve Coaptation: Connector-Assisted Nerve Repair in Complex Injuries.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This clinical literature systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess differences in outcomes between nerves repaired with direct repair (DR) and connector-assisted repair (CAR). Methods: A systematic literature review for DR and CAR was performed. Studies from 1980 through August 2023 were included if DR or CAR repairs were performed in upper extremities with nerve gaps less than 5 mm and reported sensory Medical Research Council Classification (MRCC) outcomes or equivalent. Comparative analyses were planned for meaningful recovery (MR) rate (at both S3 and S3+ or better), postsurgical neuroma, cold intolerance, altered sensation, pain, and revision rate. Results: There were significant differences in MR rates for CAR and DR. At the MRCC S3 threshold, 96.1% of CAR and 81.3% of DR achieved MR ( Conclusions: Significantly more patients achieved sensory MR and fewer had cold intolerance when the CAR technique, instead of the DR technique, was performed to repair peripheral nerve injuries.
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.