ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2025
Secondary Ulnar Nerve Reconstruction of High Ulnar Nerve Injuries: A Comparative Study of Sural Grafting and Anterior Interosseous Nerve Transfer.
Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2025. 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.
- Motor Nerve Transfers in Complete and Incomplete Brachial Plexus Injuries: A State-of-the-Art Review.Neurology international · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: High ulnar nerve injuries often cause severe functional impairment, and the best secondary repair method remains debated. This study compared the effectiveness of sural nerve grafting and anterior interosseous nerve (AIN) transfer following failed primary ulnar nerve repairs. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 42 patients with isolated high ulnar nerve injuries who required secondary surgical intervention. Patients were allocated to either the sural nerve grafting (n = 23) or AIN transfer (n = 19) group based on predefined clinical criteria. Motor and sensory functions were assessed using the British Medical Research Council (BMRC) grading system and a two-point discrimination (2PD) test. Grip and pinch strength were measured, and functional recovery was evaluated using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. Results: The AIN transfer group exhibited significantly superior motor recovery, with 68.5% of patients achieving BMRC grades M4-M5, compared to only 17.4% in the sural grafting group (P = 0.03). Sensory recovery was also markedly better in the AIN group, with a higher proportion of patients reaching BMRC sensory grades S3-S4 (P = 0.04). Additionally, the AIN transfer group demonstrated significantly greater grip strength (30.1 ± 6.1 kg vs. 24.3 ± 5.2 kg; P = 0.03) and pinch strength (7.2 ± 1.5 kg vs. 5.8 ± 1.3 kg; P = 0.04). Improvement in DASH scores was more substantial in the AIN group (-26.6 ± 5.7 vs. -14.6 ± 4.3; P = 0.02), indicating better functional recovery. Although the AIN group showed a trend toward improved 2PD, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.18). Conclusion: AIN transfer provides superior outcomes compared to sural nerve grafting for the secondary repair of high ulnar nerve injuries, demonstrating significantly enhanced motor and sensory recovery, grip and pinch strength, and overall functional improvement.
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.