ReviewJournal of hand surgery global online2024
Ballistic Nerve Injuries: State of the Evidence and Approach to the Patient Based on Experience.
Review in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nerve injuries secondary to gunshot wounds (GSWs) have been traditionally thought of as neurapraxic injuries with high likelihood of complete recovery. A review of the literature, however, highlights the misconceptions surrounding ballistic nerve injuries and their treatments. Contrary to this accepted dogma, approximately 30% to 60% of GSWs to the upper extremity may result in nerve injury requiring repair or reconstruction. Surgical exploration following ballistic injury reveals that 20% to 55% of nerves were lacerated requiring repair or grafting. Despite these numbers, outcomes after nerve repair or grafting are limited, and the limited data show evidence of poor functional recovery. In our experience, delayed exploration of GSW-related nerve injuries in patients without signs of functional recovery demonstrate large neuromas in continuity often requiring meticulous dissection and excision with resulting large gaps that require reconstruction. This has led us to explore options to identify patients with nerve deficits after GSWs who may benefit from earlier exploration. Others advocate for the exploration of all ballistic nerve injuries, which would represent a logistical challenge in high volume centers and may lead to unnecessary explorations of in continuity nerves. To facilitate identification of nerve injury following GSWs, we have explored the utilization of early ultrasound to identify patients with nerve lacerations that may benefit from early exploration (1-2 weeks after injury). Earlier exploration can lead to less technically challenging surgery, shorter nerve gaps, and more time for the nerve to recover. Herein, we present a series of cases to help illustrate this approach to the patient. Although early exploration and repair versus grafting of nerves may have benefits as outlined above, there are little to no data on outcomes of nerve repair or grafting in ballistic injuries in the more acute setting, 1 to 2 weeks after injury. Further research is needed both with regards to diagnosis and utilization of ultrasound, as well as postoperative outcomes in patients with ballistic nerve injuries to help guide our ever-evolving treatment protocols.
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.