ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Combined long nerve allograft and nerve transfer for functional recovery of ulnar nerve: case study with longitudinal clinical and neurodiagnostic follow-up.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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.
- Comment on "Anatomical basis of the neurotization of the brachialis muscle to the extensor carpi radialis muscles to restore an active extension of the tetraplegic wrist".Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2026Article
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
Background: Peripheral nerve injuries involving large gaps (>50 mm) are associated with poor outcomes due to delayed axonal regeneration and limited reconstructive options. While autografts are traditionally the gold standard, their use is limited by donor site morbidity and length constraints. Processed nerve allografts have emerged as an alternative, but data on their long-term efficacy, particularly for gaps ≥60 mm remain limited. Case report: We present a case of a 15-year-old male with a 68-mm ulnar nerve gap following trauma reconstructed acutely with a processed nerve allograft. This procedure was performed in conjunction with an anterior interosseous nerve (AIN) to ulnar motor branch transfer and ulnar nerve decompression of potential entrapment sites. Results: Serial assessments over 4.5 years demonstrated substantial recovery. By 16 months, the patient had regained strong grip strength, full range of motion, and near-normal sensory thresholds. At final follow-up, he had returned to all activities without limitations. Serial EMGs confirmed early nascent motor unit recruitment by 3 months, progressive reinnervation at 16 months, and persistent low-amplitude responses at 54 months, suggestive of ongoing but incomplete reinnervation. Conclusion: This case provides the longest known electrodiagnostic follow-up of a long-gap ulnar nerve allograft reconstruction. It supports the feasibility of processed allografts for gaps ≤70 mm and emphasizes the value of long-term EMG monitoring in tracking regeneration. These findings contribute critical data to a sparsely studied domain and help define expectations for complex nerve repairs.
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.