ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Continuous versus interrupted epineural repair in forearm nerve injuries.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeripheral nerve repair traditionally employs interrupted suture techniques, but continuous suturing may offer advantages in operative efficiency without compromising outcomes. We compared functional recovery and surgical parameters between continuous and interrupted epineural repair techniques in forearm nerve injuries.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 78 patients with acute forearm nerve injuries (median, radial, ulnar) treated between 2017 and 2020. Patients underwent primary epineural repair using either continuous (n = 40, 51.3%) or interrupted (n = 38, 48.7%) suture techniques. All procedures utilized 7-0 or 8-0 nylon sutures under microscopic visualization. Functional recovery was assessed using Highet-Zachary classification at minimum 12-month follow-up. Primary endpoints included motor/sensory recovery and operative duration. Secondary endpoints: operative times (isolated neurorrhaphy and total) and subgroup analyses by nerve type, injury level, and concomitant vascular repair.
resultsDemographics were comparable between groups (mean age 30.4 ± 11.1 years, 89.7% male). Distribution included ulnar (46.2%), median (30.4%), and radial (23.1%) nerve injuries. Mean follow-up was 37.8 ± 18.1 months. Continuous suture technique significantly reduced operative time compared to interrupted technique (59.3 ± 9.8 vs 96.1 ± 12.3 min, p < 0.001). Functional outcomes showed no significant differences between groups, with successful nerve recovery (≥ M3 motor, ≥ S3 sensory) achieved in 94.9% of continuous group and 94.7% of interrupted group patients. Subgroup analyses confirmed similar results across nerve types, injury levels, and in the presence/absence of vascular repair.
conclusionContinuous epineural suture technique achieves equivalent functional outcomes to conventional interrupted repair while significantly reducing operative time by approximately 38%. This approach may offer practical advantages in peripheral nerve reconstruction without compromising neurological recovery, potentially reducing anesthesia exposure and healthcare costs.
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.