Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.


Hand Nerve Injury Repair Treatment & Management

  • Author: Subhas Gupta, MD, PhD, CM, FRCSC, FACS; Chief Editor: Joseph A Molnar, MD, PhD, FACS  more...
Updated: May 04, 2015

Medical Therapy

If surgery is not an option, the best choice for patients is supportive therapy to maintain range of motion and muscle tone. This involves 2 main procedures: (1) immobilization to prevent deforming contractures and (2) massage and exercises to maintain blood flow and free movement.[15]


Surgical Therapy

The goal of surgical nerve repair is axonal growth through a repaired or replaced conduit. If no conduit is present, nerve regeneration fails in favor of neuroma creation. Many different techniques have been developed to facilitate repair of the conduits, including approximation, nerve grafting, alternate conduits, and nerve transfer.

End-to-end closure

End-to-end closure involves the approximation of the transected nerve's free ends. This is the simplest repair procedure and usually has the best prognosis. End-to-end closure is indicated in patients in whom the nerve gap is less than 2 cm in length and/or the nerve can be repaired without tension. This defect is closed most often with epineurial or perineurial/fascicular sutures, which is discussed in Closure of defect.[4, 39, 31, 14]

A study by Fakin et al indicated that in epineurial coaptation of digital nerves in adults, the level of success at long-term follow-up with regard to sensory outcome is related only to the surgeon’s level of experience and not to such factors as the patient’s age, whether or not the patient smokes, the time of immobilization, the mechanism of injury, or anastomosis of a digital artery. The study involved 93 coapted digital nerves, with mean follow-up being 3.5 years.[72]

Nerve grafting

This form of repair is ideally suited for bridging the gap between 2 ends that cannot be easily approximated. For many years, the popularity of short nerve grafts and the resulting poor patient outcomes were responsible for the avoidance of this technique. However, a nerve graft, regardless of length, if performed in a tensionless manner, has been shown to generally have better results than an end-to-end approximation performed under tension.[73, 10, 26, 74]

In general, harvesting a nerve graft to repair a defect creates a secondary defect in a different location (see Table 5). For this reason, good donor nerves provide noncritical sensation, and their innervation pattern loss does not leave a body part unprotected. Nerves that meet this requirement include small cutaneous nerves, which lead to a minimal loss in sensation, and nerves that have been severed concomitantly, as in a polytrauma or amputation. Harvest of the graft can be performed in a variety of ways, but removing the graft in a manner that leaves the remaining proximal end buried, thus minimizing possible complications from neuromas at the donor site, is beneficial.[19, 9]

Table 5. Common Donor Sites (Open Table in a new window)

Graft Donor Site Length Obtained Sensory Deficit
Distal posterior interosseous nerve 15-20 cm Dorsal wrist joint
Lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve 15 cm Lateral forearm surface
Medial antebrachial cutaneous 20 cm Medial and anterior surface of forearm
Superficial radial 25 cm Dorsal radial hand surface
Lateral femoral cutaneous 30 cm Lateral and thigh
Anterior femoral cutaneous 40 cm Medial and anterior thigh
Sural 40 cm Lateral foot surface and a portion of the heel
Saphenous 25-40 cm Medial foot surface

Many different types of grafting have been performed, but very few have worked well. One method used a trunk graft, or a section of a large nerve, that bridged the gap completely without any other grafts. This was similar to the cable grafts developed slightly later, in which smaller nerves were harvested and glued together to create a single large graft. Both of these methods met with little success, largely because the grafts were too thick and their centers took too long to become vascularized, which is a requirement to provide the energy needed for degeneration and reinnervation. Trunk grafting is still used occasionally in situations in which other options have been exhausted, but some have suggested that the graft be cut prior to grafting. This form of delay allows the metabolically active degenerative process to occur in a vascularized bed, before the nerve is free grafted; the idea being that this helps prevent the center and distal ends of the graft from becoming fibrotic.[19]

The use of small cutaneous nerves for grafts minimizes the morbidity of the harvest and has allowed for much better results than using an interfascicular graft. Multiple sections of the donor nerve are used to bridge the gap and are attached between similar fascicles, independent of the other graft pieces. This technique attempts to return some semblance of fascicular continuity. Maintaining the donor nerve vasculature in a free graft form is also possible.

Harvesting the dominant pedicle to the graft and attaching it appropriately in the donor site can allow the graft to survive in suboptimal conditions, such as scar beds, or can accelerate the growth in proximal injuries.[19]

Axons have been demonstrated to preferentially innervate endoneurial tubes of similar function. However, that preference is nonspecific for location. Also, the discovery has been made that over time, regenerating nerves disregard an existing fascicular pattern and progress down extrafascicular paths or create a new fascicle. This means that even in situations in which the fascicles match up, the potential for disastrous disorganization upon reinnervation exists. Thus, take extreme care to align and repair the fascicular patterns because a misalignment can result in a defect of reinnervation. Interestingly, this disorganization can be somewhat overcome through sensory reeducation.

A study by Rinker et al indicated that short-gap digital nerve injuries (ie, 5-15 mm) can be effectively repaired with processed nerve allografts. The study, which included 24 patients (37 repairs), found that in 92% of repairs, patients achieved sensory recovery scores of S3-S4 on the Medical Research Council Classification scale.[75]


Nonneural tissue and synthetic substances have been used as alternatives for nerve grafts for the last century, although with only marginal success until the 1980s. Since that time, some success has been achieved with arteries, veins, and silicon or bioabsorbable conduits. These have been used with a fair bit of success to bridge gaps less than 3 cm, with good-to-excellent sensory recovery. The use of these tubes is believed to create a microenvironment for the various chemical factors that regulate nerve regeneration, thus enhancing the process.[37, 76, 39, 77, 49]

A prospective, randomized study compared the sensory recovery, cost, and complications of digital nerve repair using autogenous vein and polyglycolic acid conduits. The results concluded that although the cost and sensory recovery after autogenous vein conduit was similar to that of the polyglycolic acid conduit, fewer postoperative complications were found after the autogenous vein conduit technique.[78]

Nerve transfers

This form of nerve repair transfers damaged or minor motor pathways and uses them to reinnervate major pathways, with the hope of restoring some function. This is indicated in severe polyneuropathy and is usually performed only if nerve grafts are unfeasible, the injury is extremely proximal compared to essential end organs, or muscle and tendon transfers have been exhausted or are unavailable. This procedure is not used often in the upper extremities and has primarily been described for cranial nerve injuries.[79]

The results of one study conclude that a reconstruction method of very distal nerve transfer of radial nerve branches to palmar nerves at the level of the proximal phalanx is useful in high median nerve lesions and can restore fingertip sensation. However, very distal nerve transfers might be used in addition to nerve grafting in older patients or in patients with chronic lesions of the median nerve at the wrist.[80]


Preoperative Details

Preoperative planning is important and includes the diagnostic tests (described in Diagnostic Procedures) that allow localization of the injury. This is important because the grade of injury plays a major role in deciding whether surgery is indicated. Injuries of first to third degree are likely to heal well on their own, without intervention. However, fourth- and fifth-degree injuries need intervention, and the sooner surgery is performed, the better.

Another consideration that becomes apparent based on the patient's history is the mechanism of injury. Sharp transections, because of their minimal tissue damage, can be operated on immediately without worrying whether neural and other tissue close to the wound will die. This certainty does not extend to injuries with a crush component, and these injuries must be handled differently by waiting a few weeks for the degeneration of neural tissue to reach its maximum levels so that healthy nerve tissue can be reached by dissection and repaired by nerve graft.

The issue of how long to wait, ie, whether to perform an immediately primary closure, wait a week, and perform a delayed primary closure or wait more than 2 weeks and perform a secondary closure, has been debated for some time. In general, better results have been achieved following earlier repair, but the conditions that allow for primary repair are fairly stringent. This is discussed in Indications and is one of the most important factors to consider prior to surgery.

Working with patient issues is also extremely important before surgery. During the history and workup, estimate patient compliance. By nature, repairs of peripheral nerves are delicate and can be destroyed within days of the surgery in a noncompliant patient.[81, 82, 83] Because nerve repair is handled as elective surgery, a noncompliant patient may be a candidate for education prior to surgery. If the patient's dominant hand is injured, he or she may need reeducation for the opposite hand to cope during and after surgery and during recovery. Patients also need to be informed, realistically, of the expected outcome. While the results are improving, very few patients recover normal or close-to-normal function. This plays a big role in patient satisfaction later.

Finally, knowing what kinds of activities patients enjoy, their occupation, and their avocations is important because in some patients, this information may be involved in the type of repair and nerve graft site selection. For instance, harvesting the sural nerve is not wise in construction workers who are on their feet in dangerous situations.


Intraoperative Details


To repair the nerve under optimal conditions, making a large enough incision to facilitate exposure of the proximal and distal ends of the injured nerve is best. Take care to preserve the vascular attachments when exposing the nerves, if possible. Also, because the entry incision inevitably produces a scar that is detrimental to good nerve function, make the incision away from the portion of the wound maintaining the perfusion of the nerve bed.[10, 19, 84]


The amount of tension on a site of repair or graft is the single largest determinant of success. A repair site under tension has an increased amount of scar tissue and fibrosis and a reduced cross-sectional area, which blocks axonal growth. This is observed in the postoperative period when an advancing Tinel sign stops at or just distal to the repair site. Increased tension on the nerve stretches it out, decreases the cross-sectional area, and increases the pressure within the nerve. With higher pressure, less blood passes through the intrinsic vessels of the nerve. While the peripheral nerves are fairly resistant to ischemia, if the tension is not relieved, ischemic nerve damage and internal fibrosis can occur.[73, 85, 26, 86]

Since the detrimental effect of tension on the site of union was recognized, various strategies have been proposed to lengthen the nerve or shorten the distance between the ends so that the tension is reduced. The most successful and most commonly used method is nerve grafting. A section of nerve can be harvested and placed between 2 severed ends, allowing union without tension. Because excess graft length is typically easy to obtain, current recommendations include harvesting a donor segment at least 15% longer than the nerve gap site.[87, 74]

Other techniques that can be used in extreme or isolated situations include mobilization, bone shortening, and joint repositioning. Mobilization is fairly useful in patients in whom the injured nerve lies outside the center of rotation of a joint, such as the ulnar nerve at the elbow. By transposing the nerve inside the point of rotation, the amount of needed excursion is reduced and the length of nerve is increased. Bone shortening is an extreme method of gaining nerve length and is indicated only in the upper extremity when a humoral osteotomy is also indicated.

Because of the large amount of excursion possible with nerves, joint repositioning can make available significant nerve length. Extensive studies have been performed on cadavers to determine how many millimeters of nerve length flexing and extending various joints can gain. Large amounts of length can be gained with 90° flexion at the elbow and 40° at the wrist. The increase in nerve length is beneficial for a tensionless repair, but the gradual return to full extension once the nerve has started healing inflicts a series of traction injuries. This reduces the number and effect of regenerating axons; thus, the results are inferior to a tensionless nerve graft that allows for maximum extension.[50]

Closure of defect

Surgeons have several options to close the nerve defect. Epineurial closure involves placing several nonabsorbable sutures in the epineurium of the free nerve ends. Use a fairly small suture, 8-0 to 10-0, so that the amount of tissue displaced within the nerve is minimal, as is scar formation from the presence of a foreign body. Place the sutures such that the nerve ends are approximated, but not under enough tension to strangulate the tissue. Excess tension overcomes the capillary perfusion pressure; thus, the nerve is rendered ischemic. The number of sutures required to obtain closure varies depending on the size of the nerve and the size of the gap. Triangulation closure provides the most accurate alignment. This method of closure is recommended for distal injuries in which the nerve fascicles generally have been sorted into discrete sensory and motor functions.[88, 89, 76, 31, 14]

Perineurial closure is involved with fascicular repair. In this method, the outer epineurium is pulled back, exposing the individual fascicles of axons. Care is taken to approximate fascicles of the same function in end-to-end closure or to connect fascicles of similar function in aimed graft repair. The fascicles are then sutured together with a single 10-0 suture placed through the perineurium. If rotation occurs so that the fascicle is no longer lined up, a second suture may be required. Starting at the deepest part of the wound and working toward the surface in a one-way-up anastomotic technique is a good idea.

This type of repair is recommended for more proximal injuries that are not yet well sorted. A variation on this type of repair is the grouped fascicular, in which a number of fascicles are arranged tightly. In this situation, a few sutures are used to approximate and close the whole group.[10, 90, 91, 88, 92, 4, 31, 14]

Closure of wound

Once the nerve is repaired, maximizing the chances for the repair to heal and be functional is important. This can be aided by attempts to reduce the amount of scar tissue and leave the repaired nerve in a well-vascularized bed, away from the incision. Anything that reduces the number of adhesions and lets the repaired nerve regain its ability to glide improves eventual function. In some cases of repair, in which a large amount of trauma and swelling is present, performing adjacent tissue transfers may be necessary to ensure that the repaired nerve is not under pressure by tightly closed soft tissue.[10]


Postoperative Details

Following surgery, immobilizing the limb is imperative to protect the repair site. Follow basic guidelines for safe splint positioning. This prevents the denervated muscles from remaining in an overstretched position, prevents disfiguring joint contractures, prevents the patient from adapting to the injury, and eventually allows maximum use of the hand. For the first week to 10 days, immobilize the limb completely to prevent disruption of the repaired union. In the second postoperative week, therapy to maintain the range of motion, muscle tone, and blood supply to the area can be started.

Even though the site of repair tolerates movement, the continuing healing process and the sensory deficits warrant a protective splint for several weeks. By the third or fourth week, removing the splint and relying on the patient (after a warning about the dangers of excessive excursion) to slowly increase the amount of movement and function in the affected limb is generally safe.[93, 94, 30, 39]



Following surgery, continuing care for the patient and establishing a therapy routine are important. Continued care and therapy involve 2 main aspects. The continued care aspect is tracking the regenerating axons, using EMG/NCS testing and the Tinel sign, to their successful reinnervation of muscle and sensory end organs. Close follow-up care is essential to detect the arrest of axon regeneration for any reason, especially near the repair, because a second operation may be required to resect scarred or other unfavorable tissue and reconstruct the nerve a second time.

The therapy aspect of follow-up care is essential for functional return. Axon regrowth is only part of the process that must occur for a good functional result because reinnervation of sensory organs has been shown to not correlate with return of function.[95] This finding, when integrated with the improved results in children, suggests that a large central component to nerve repair exists. Several studies have demonstrated that sensory reeducation protocols greatly increase the functional outcome and that the return of function is accompanied by cortical reorganization.[11, 96, 97, 98] In essence, a new part of the brain must figure out what it is like to feel, which is why sensory-rich environments can help speed the process. In addition to the sensory reeducation, hand therapists work with strength and coordination function so that the hand is also functional.[19, 99, 100, 39, 31]



Complications are a concern in every surgery, although being prepared can help minimize the resulting consequences. Additionally, knowing what kinds of situations increase the risk of complications can help decrease the postsurgery complication rate simply by avoiding high-risk procedures.[101, 9]

Potential complications are as follows:

  • Hematoma of large or small vessels
  • Failure of sutures or grafted structures
  • Traction due to adhesions or repair using joint repositioning
  • Fibrosis of the nerve or nerve graft if no profusion occurs for long periods (This is especially common if the repair is placed under tension or in an unvascularized bed.)
  • Neuroma formation following incomplete repair
    Hand nerve injury repair. Posttraumatic neuroma. Hand nerve injury repair. Posttraumatic neuroma.
    Hand nerve injury repair. Excision of posttraumati Hand nerve injury repair. Excision of posttraumatic neuroma.
  • Entrapment of the nerve following the repair due to excessive scar tissue formation or pressure from associated wounds

Outcome and Prognosis

Factors that affect the results of nerve repairs are varied, and only a very few of them rely on physician proficiency. Despite this, awareness of these factors is beneficial to enable the patient and doctor to have realistic expectations of the outcome.[4, 101, 39, 31, 68]


Better results have been demonstrated when the repair is performed sooner. Good results can be expected if the repair is performed before the 6-month mark. Muscle neuromuscular junctions are usually absent after 15-18 months of inactivity; thus, sooner reinnervation is better.

Patient age

Young patients tend to achieve much better results than older patients, probably due to the elasticity of the CNS and the increased ability to heal.

Condition of the wound

A clean, small, noninfected wound fares much better than a wound full of debris or infection or one that is missing a great deal of tissue.

Level of injury

The chances of regeneration are better for injuries that are more distal. Proximal injuries are less likely to regenerate because the distance required for reinnervation is much greater and the percentage of cells lost in the distal portion of the nerve is greater. Also, if the proximal injury is a traction-type injury, it can pull the cell body out of the anterior horn, resulting in neuron death and no regeneration.

Tension of the repair

Tension tends to increase the fibrotic and scar tissue found within the nerve and the repair site, hindering proper axon regrowth.

Gap size

Gap size is different from the amount of tissue loss. The gap size is simply the distance between ends that must be closed. If the nerve is left in the severed condition, it retracts over time, increasing the gap size due to the elastic properties of the epineurium. When the gap size is larger, more of a bridge must be filled and the prognosis is worse.


The manner in which the nerve was injured is also involved in healing, largely because it affects so many of the other categories. From a surgical point of view, a sharp laceration, such as a knife wound, has a good prognosis, can be closed early, and should do fairly well.

Traction injuries, if mild, undergo demyelination. If the stretch is more severe, the axon and endoneurium can rupture, causing a second- to third-degree injury. These usually have a fairly good prognosis.

A wound caused by a large crush component can destroy long stretches of nerve and surrounding tissue. Usually, waiting and observing how much tissue dies is best so that viable nerve ends can be joined, which results in a much better prognosis.

The worst kinds of wounds are those created by projectiles. The rapid changes in momentum tend to damage a great deal of tissue and can leave debris in the wound. These types of injuries usually result in axonotmesis, although spontaneous recovery is possible.

While the factors affecting prognosis seem rather intuitive, communicating a patient's recovery status can be much more difficult. In an effort to create a standard scale for measuring the outcomes of surgery, British physicians created scales for grading sensory and motor function.[31, 68] These have been and remain widely used in clinical practice. Unfortunately, these grades are very subjective, which makes using this system for comparison between institutions difficult to impossible. Other scales have been introduced, such as the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing, but they have not been used widely in the literature as a measure of outcome.

Aside from the difficulty in measuring and grading the regenerative outcome of the surgery, patient satisfaction is an extremely important variable that is very difficult to measure. Even if a good-to-excellent functional result is achieved, the patient may be wholly unsatisfied with the result. Patient satisfaction can be improved through upfront communication early in the process about what to expect.


Future and Controversies

Currently, a large amount of research is investigating the molecular science of nerve growth and the chemical cascades that take place during regeneration. As these mechanisms are elucidated and more is known about the regenerative process, better methods of repair can be determined.

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Subhas Gupta, MD, PhD, CM, FRCSC, FACS Chief of Surgical Services, Professor of Surgery, Chairman, Department of Plastic Surgery, Director of Plastic Surgery Residency, Director of Comprehensive Wound Service, Department of Plastic Surgery, Loma Linda University School of Medicine

Subhas Gupta, MD, PhD, CM, FRCSC, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Phlebology, Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Plastic Surgery Research Council, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Wound Healing Society, California Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Burn Association, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Medical Informatics Association, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons, Quebec Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

David W Chang, MD, FACS Associate Professor, Department of Plastic Surgery, MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas Medical School at Houston

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Joseph A Molnar, MD, PhD, FACS Medical Director, Wound Care Center, Associate Director of Burn Unit, Professor, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine

Joseph A Molnar, MD, PhD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American Medical Association, American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, North Carolina Medical Society, Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society, Peripheral Nerve Society, Wound Healing Society, American Burn Association, American College of Surgeons

Disclosure: Received grant/research funds from Clinical Cell Culture for co-investigator; Received honoraria from Integra Life Sciences for speaking and teaching; Received honoraria from Healogics for board membership; Received honoraria from Anika Therapeutics for consulting; Received honoraria from Food Matters for consulting.

Additional Contributors

Anthony E Sudekum, MD Consulting Staff, Department of Plastic Surgery, St John's Mercy Health Center of St Louis

Anthony E Sudekum, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, Missouri State Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

  1. Sunderland S, Bradley KC. The cross-sectional area of peripheral nerve trunks devoted to nerve fibers. Brain. 1949. 72:428-49.

  2. Majno G. The Healing Hand. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1975.

  3. Sunderland S. Advances in diagnosis and treatment of root and peripheral nerve injury. Adv Neurol. 1979. 22:271-305. [Medline].

  4. Mackinnon S, Dellon AL. Surgery of the Peripheral Nerve. New York, NY: Thieme Medical; 1988.

  5. Allan CH. Functional results of primary nerve repair. Hand Clin. 2000 Feb. 16(1):67-72. [Medline].

  6. Tubiana R. Evolution of the concepts and techniques used in the repair of peripheral nerves. Tubiana R, ed. The Hand. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1988. Vol 3: 367-82.

  7. Mitchell SW. Injuries of Nerves and Their Consequences. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott; 1872. 89-91.

  8. Seddon HJ. Three types of nerve injury. Brain. 1943. 66(4):238-88.

  9. Millesi H. Techniques for nerve grafting. Hand Clin. 2000 Feb. 16(1):73-91, viii. [Medline].

  10. Millesi H, Meissl G, Berger A. The interfascicular nerve-grafting of the median and ulnar nerves. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972 Jun. 54(4):727-50. [Medline].

  11. Dellon AL, Jabaley ME. Reeducation of sensation in the hand following nerve suture. Clin Orthop. 1982 Mar. (163):75-9. [Medline].

  12. Castaldo JE, Ochoa JL. Mechanical injury of peripheral nerves: fine structure and dysfunction. Terzis JK, ed. Microreconstruction of Nerve Injuries. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1987. 15-32.

  13. Carter GT, Robinson LR, Chang VH, Kraft GH. Electrodiagnostic evaluation of traumatic nerve injuries. Hand Clin. 2000 Feb. 16(1):1-12, vii. [Medline].

  14. Diao E, Vannuyen T. Techniques for primary nerve repair. Hand Clin. 2000 Feb. 16(1):53-66, viii. [Medline].

  15. Sunderland S. Nerves and Nerve Injuries. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1978.

  16. Selecki BR, Ring IT, Simpson DA, et al. Trauma to the central and peripheral nervous systems. Part II: A statistical profile of surgical treatment New South Wales 1977. Aust N Z J Surg. 1982 Apr. 52(2):111-6. [Medline].

  17. Noble J, Munro CA, Prasad VS, Midha R. Analysis of upper and lower extremity peripheral nerve injuries in a population of patients with multiple injuries. J Trauma. 1998 Jul. 45(1):116-22. [Medline].

  18. Birch R, Raji AR. Repair of median and ulnar nerves. Primary suture is best. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991 Jan. 73(1):154-7. [Medline].

  19. Wilgis EF, Brushart TM. Nerve repair and grafting. Green DP, ed. Operative Hand Surgery. Toronto, Canada: Churchill Livingstone; 1993. Vol 2: 1315-40.

  20. Kline DG, Hudson AR. Selected recent advances in peripheral nerve injury research. Surg Neurol. 1985 Oct. 24(4):371-6. [Medline].

  21. Ducker TB, Kempe LG, Hayes GJ. The metabolic background for peripheral nerve surgery. J Neurosurg. 1969 Mar. 30(3):270-80. [Medline].

  22. Bushnell BD, McWilliams AD, Whitener GB, Messer TM. Early clinical experience with collagen nerve tubes in digital nerve repair. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2008 Sep. 33(7):1081-7. [Medline].

  23. Taras JS, Jacoby SM, Lincoski CJ. Reconstruction of digital nerves with collagen conduits. J Hand Surg Am. 2011 Sep. 36(9):1441-6. [Medline].

  24. Cabaud HE, Rodkey WG, Nemeth TJ. Progressive ultrastructural changes after peripheral nerve transection and repair. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1982 Jul. 7(4):353-65. [Medline].

  25. O'Daly JA, Imaeda T. Electron microscopic study of Wallerian degeneration in cutaneous nerves caused by mechanical injury. Lab Invest. 1967 Dec. 17(6):744-66. [Medline].

  26. Terzis J, Faibisoff B, Williams B. The nerve gap: suture under tension vs. graft. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1975 Aug. 56(2):166-70. [Medline].

  27. Mira JC. The biology of regeneration in peripheral nerves. Tubiana R, ed. The Hand. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1988. Vol 3: 383-404.

  28. Chaudhry V, Cornblath DR. Wallerian degeneration in human nerves: serial electrophysiological studies. Muscle Nerve. 1992 Jun. 15(6):687-93. [Medline].

  29. Drago J, Kilpatrick TJ, Koblar SA, Talman PS. Growth factors: potential therapeutic applications in neurology. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1994 Dec. 57(12):1445-50. [Medline].

  30. Colditz JC. Splinting the hand with a peripheral nerve injury. Hunter GM, Mackin EJ, Callahan AD, eds. Rehabilitation of the Hand: Surgery and Therapy. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1995. 679-92.

  31. Rafols FJ, Orenstein HH. Hand II: Peripheral Nerves and Tendon Transfers. Selected Readings in Plastic Surgery. 1999. 8 (33):1-40.

  32. Weis P. The technology of nerve regeneration: A review, sutureless tubulation and related methods of nerve repair. J Neurosurg. 1944. 1:400-50.

  33. Weis P, Taylor C. Further experimental evidence against 'neurotropis' in nerve regeneration. J Exp Zoo. 1944. 95:233-57.

  34. Yamada KM, Spooner BS, Wessells NK. Ultrastructure and function of growth cones and axons of cultured nerve cells. J Cell Biol. 1971 Jun. 49(3):614-35. [Medline].

  35. Brushart TM, Gerber J, Kessens P, et al. Contributions of pathway and neuron to preferential motor reinnervation. J Neurosci. 1998 Nov 1. 18(21):8674-81. [Medline].

  36. Varon S, Adler R. Trophic and specifying factors directed to neuronal cells. Adv Cell Neurobiol. 1981. 2:115-63.

  37. Lundborg G, Dahlin LB, Danielsen N, et al. Nerve regeneration across an extended gap: a neurobiological view of nerve repair and the possible involvement of neuronotrophic factors. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1982 Nov. 7(6):580-7. [Medline].

  38. Lundborg G, Longo FM, Varon S. Nerve regeneration model and trophic factors in vivo. Brain Res. 1982 Jan 28. 232(1):157-61. [Medline].

  39. Birch R, Bonney G, Wynn Parry CB. Surgical Disorders of the Peripheral Nerves. Toronto, Canada: Churchill Livingstone; 1998.

  40. Breidenbach W, Terzis JK. The anatomy of free vascularized nerve grafts. Clin Plast Surg. 1984 Jan. 11(1):65-71. [Medline].

  41. Politis MJ. Specificity in mammalian peripheral nerve regeneration at the level of the nerve trunk. Brain Res. 1985 Mar 4. 328(2):271-6. [Medline].

  42. Lundborg G. The hand and the brain. Hunter JM, Schneider LH, Mackin EJ, eds. Tendon and Nerve Surgery in the Hand: A Third Decade. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1994. 3-10.

  43. Frykman GK. Nerve regeneration after injury: newer approaches to improving nerve regeneration. Hunter JM, Schneider LH, eds. Tendon and Nerve Surgery in the Hand: A Third Decade. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1994. 26-30.

  44. Tubiana R. Clinical examination and functional assessment of the upper limb after peripheral nerve lesions. Tubiana R, ed. The Hand. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1988. Vol 3: 453-88.

  45. Omer GE Jr. Physical diagnosis of peripheral nerve injuries. Orthop Clin North Am. 1981 Apr. 12(2):207-28. [Medline].

  46. Varitimidis SE, Sotereanos DG. Partial nerve injuries in the upper extremity. Hand Clin. 2000 Feb. 16(1):141-9. [Medline].

  47. Taylor GI, Ham FJ. The free vascularized nerve graft. A further experimental and clinical application of microvascular techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1976 Apr. 57(4):413-26. [Medline].

  48. Townsend PL, Taylor GI. Vascularised nerve grafts using composite arterialised neuro-venous systems. Br J Plast Surg. 1984 Jan. 37(1):1-17. [Medline].

  49. Weber RA, Breidenbach WC, Brown RE, et al. A randomized prospective study of polyglycolic acid conduits for digital nerve reconstruction in humans. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000 Oct. 106(5):1036-45; discussion 1046-8. [Medline].

  50. Trumble TE, McCallister WV. Repair of peripheral nerve defects in the upper extremity. Hand Clin. 2000 Feb. 16(1):37-52. [Medline].

  51. Jabaley ME. Internal anatomy of the peripheral nerve. Hunter JM, Schneider LH, eds. Tendon and Nerve Surgery in the Hand: A Third Decade. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1994. 19-25.

  52. Smith KL. Anatomy of the peripheral nerve. Hunter JM, Schneider LH, eds. Tendon and Nerve Surgery in the Hand: A Third Decade. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1994. 11-8.

  53. Jarvik JG, Kliot M, Maravilla KR. MR nerve imaging of the wrist and hand. Hand Clin. 2000 Feb. 16(1):13-24, vii. [Medline].

  54. Allieu Y, Bonnel F. Surgical anatomy of the peripheral nerves. Tubiana R, ed. The Hand. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1988. Vol 3: 405-23.

  55. Sunderland S. The internal topography of the radial, median, and ulnar nerves. Brain. 1945. 64(4):243-99.

  56. Sunderland S. Nerve Injuries and their Repair. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1991.

  57. Chow JA, Van Beek AL, Meyer DL, Johnson MC. Surgical significance of the motor fascicular group of the ulnar nerve in the forearm. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1985 Nov. 10(6 Pt 1):867-72. [Medline].

  58. Bjorkman A, Weibull A, Rosen B, Svensson J, Lundborg G. Rapid cortical reorganisation and improved sensitivity of the hand following cutaneous anaesthesia of the forearm. Eur J Neurosci. 2009 Feb. 29(4):837-44. [Medline].

  59. Kilinc A, Ben Slama S, Dubert T, Dinh A, Osman N, Valenti P. [Results of primary repair of injuries to the median and ulnar nerves at the wrist]. Chir Main. 2009 Apr. 28(2):87-92. [Medline].

  60. Werdin F, Schaller HE. [Combined flexor tendon and nerve injury of the hand]. Orthopade. 2008 Dec. 37(12):1202-9. [Medline].

  61. Lampe EW. Surgical anatomy of the hand. With special reference to infections and trauma. Clin Symp. 1988. 40(3):1-36. [Medline].

  62. Hobbs RA, Magnussen PA, Tonkin MA. Palmar cutaneous branch of the median nerve. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1990 Jan. 15(1):38-43. [Medline].

  63. Leibovic SJ, Hastings H 2nd. Martin-Gruber revisited. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1992 Jan. 17(1):47-53. [Medline].

  64. McCabe SJ, Kleinert JM. The nerve of Henle. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1990 Sep. 15(5):784-8. [Medline].

  65. West GA, Haynor DR, Goodkin R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging signal changes in denervated muscles after peripheral nerve injury. Neurosurgery. 1994 Dec. 35(6):1077-85; discussion 1085-6. [Medline].

  66. Weinstein S, Drozdenko R, Weinstein C. Evaluation of sensory measures in neuropathy. Hunter JM, Schneider LH, Mackin EJ, eds. Tendon and Nerve Surgery in the Hand: A Third Decade. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1994. 63-76.

  67. Bell-Krotoski JA. Sensibility testing: current concepts. Hunter GM, Mackin EJ, Callahan AD, eds. Rehabilitation of the Hand: Surgery and Therapy. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1995. 109-28.

  68. Vanderhooft E. Functional outcomes of nerve grafts for the upper and lower extremities. Hand Clin. 2000 Feb. 16(1):93-104, ix. [Medline].

  69. Bralliar F. Electromyography: its use and misuse in peripheral nerve injuries. Orthop Clin North Am. 1981 Apr. 12(2):229-38. [Medline].

  70. Van Beek A, Hubble B, Kinkead L, et al. Clinical use of nerve stimulation and recording techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1983 Feb. 71(2):225-40. [Medline].

  71. Terzis JK, Publicover N. Clinical electrophysiologic peripheral nerve recordings. Clin Plast Surg. 1984 Jan. 11(1):47-52. [Medline].

  72. Fakin RM, Calcagni M, Klein HJ, et al. Long-term clinical outcome after epineural coaptation of digital nerves. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2015 Mar 31. [Medline].

  73. Highet WB, Sanders FK. The effects of stretching nerves after suture. Br J Surg. 1943. 30:355-69.

  74. Rodkey WG, Cabaud HE, McCarroll HR Jr. Neurorrhaphy after loss of a nerve segment: comparison of epineurial suture under tension versus multiple nerve grafts. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1980 Jul. 5(4):366-71. [Medline].

  75. Rinker BD, Ingari JV, Greenberg JA, et al. Outcomes of Short-Gap Sensory Nerve Injuries Reconstructed with Processed Nerve Allografts from a Multicenter Registry Study. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2015 Apr 20. [Medline].

  76. Mackinnon SE, Dellon AL. Clinical nerve reconstruction with a bioabsorbable polyglycolic acid tube. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990 Mar. 85(3):419-24. [Medline].

  77. Strauch B. Use of nerve conduits in peripheral nerve repair. Hand Clin. 2000 Feb. 16(1):123-30. [Medline].

  78. Rinker B, Liau JY. A prospective randomized study comparing woven polyglycolic Acid and autogenous vein conduits for reconstruction of digital nerve gaps. J Hand Surg Am. 2011 May. 36(5):775-81. [Medline].

  79. Nath RK, Mackinnon SE. Nerve transfers in the upper extremity. Hand Clin. 2000 Feb. 16(1):131-9, ix. [Medline].

  80. Bertelli JA, Ghizoni MF. Very distal sensory nerve transfers in high median nerve lesions. J Hand Surg Am. 2011 Mar. 36(3):387-93. [Medline].

  81. Scholz T, Krichevsky A, Sumarto A, Jaffurs D, Wirth GA, Paydar K, et al. Peripheral Nerve Injuries: An International Survey of Current Treatments and Future Perspectives. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2009 Mar 19. [Medline].

  82. Dahlin LB. Techniques of peripheral nerve repair. Scand J Surg. 2008. 97(4):310-6. [Medline].

  83. Taras JS, Jacoby SM. Repair of lacerated peripheral nerves with nerve conduits. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2008 Jun. 12(2):100-6. [Medline].

  84. Smith KL. Nerve response to injury and repair. Hunter GM, Mackin EJ, Callahan AD, eds. Rehabilitation of the Hand: Surgery and Therapy. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1995. 609-27.

  85. Lundborg G, Rydevik B. Effects of stretching the tibial nerve of the rabbit. A preliminary study of the intraneural circulation and the barrier function of the perineurium. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1973 May. 55(2):390-401. [Medline].

  86. Clark WL, Trumble TE, Swiontkowski MF, Tencer AF. Nerve tension and blood flow in a rat model of immediate and delayed repairs. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1992 Jul. 17(4):677-87. [Medline].

  87. Liu CT, Benda CE, Lewey FH. Tensile Strength of human nerves. Arch Neurol Psych. 1948. 59:322-36.

  88. Jabaley ME, Wallace WH, Heckler FR. Internal topography of major nerves of the forearm and hand: a current view. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1980 Jan. 5(1):1-18. [Medline].

  89. Young L, Wray RC, Weeks PM. A randomized prospective comparison of fascicular and epineural digital nerve repairs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981 Jul. 68(1):89-93. [Medline].

  90. Bratton BR, Kline DG, Coleman W, Hudson AR. Experimental interfascicular nerve grafting. J Neurosurg. 1979 Sep. 51(3):323-32. [Medline].

  91. Hudson AR, Hunter D, Kline DG, Bratton BR. Histological studies of experimental interfascicular graft repairs. J Neurosurg. 1979 Sep. 51(3):333-40. [Medline].

  92. Moneim MS. Interfascicular nerve grafting. Clin Orthop. 1982 Mar. (163):65-74. [Medline].

  93. Kiel JH. Basic Hand Splinting. Boston, Mass: Little Brown; 1983.

  94. Fess EE. Splinting peripheral nerve injuries. Hunter JM, Schneider LH, eds. Tendon and Nerve Surgery in the Hand: A Third Decade. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1994. 95-9.

  95. Jabaley ME, Burns JE, Orcutt BS, Bryant M. Comparison of histologic and functional recovery after peripheral nerve repair. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1976 Sep. 1(2):119-30. [Medline].

  96. Wiech K, Preissl H, Lutzenberger W, et al. Cortical reorganization after digit-to-hand replantation. J Neurosurg. 2000 Nov. 93(5):876-83. [Medline].

  97. Cheng AS, Hung L, Wong JM, et al. A prospective study of early tactile stimulation after digital nerve repair. Clin Orthop. 2001 Mar. (384):169-75. [Medline].

  98. Florence SL, Boydston LA, Hackett TA, et al. Sensory enrichment after peripheral nerve injury restores cortical, not thalamic, receptive field organization. Eur J Neurosci. 2001 May. 13(9):1755-66. [Medline].

  99. Callahan AD. Methods of compensation and reeducation for sensory dysfunction. Hunter GM, Mackin EJ, Callahan AD, eds. Rehabilitation of the Hand: Surgery and Therapy. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1995. 701-14.

  100. Waylett-Rendall J. Desensitization of the traumatized hand. Hunter GM, Mackin EJ, Callahan AD, eds. Rehabilitation of the Hand: Surgery and Therapy. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1995. 693-700.

  101. Fu SY, Gordon T. Contributing factors to poor functional recovery after delayed nerve repair: prolonged denervation. J Neurosci. 1995 May. 15(5 Pt 2):3886-95. [Medline].

Hand nerve injury repair. Crushed median nerve at the elbow.
Hand nerve injury repair. Epineural repair of median nerve.
Hand nerve injury repair. Partial transection of ulnar nerve in the forearm.
Hand nerve injury repair. Posttraumatic neuroma.
Hand nerve injury repair. Excision of posttraumatic neuroma.
Hand nerve injury repair. Algorithm for the treatment of nerve injuries.
Table 1. Clinical Progression Based on Degree of Injury
Degree Severity Description Tinel Sign Progress Distally Recovery Pattern Rate of Recovery Surgery
First Neurapraxia Demyelination with restoration in weeks Fast Complete Fast (days to 12 wk) None
Second Axonotmesis Disruption of axon with regeneration and full recovery + + Complete Slow (3 cm/mo) None
Third   Disruption of axon and endoneurium causing disorganized regeneration + + Varies* Slow (3 cm/mo) Varies
Fourth   Disruption of axon, endoneurium, and perineurium, with intact epineurium and no regeneration + None None Yes
Fifth Neurotmesis Transection of the nerve + None None Yes
Sixth Neuroma-in-continuity Mixture of one or more of the above conditions Varies by fascicle, depending on injury
*Recovery is at least as good as nerve repair but varies from excellent to poor, depending on the degree of endoneurial scarring and the amount of sensory and motor axonal misdirection within the injured fascicle.
Table 2. Pathophysiology of Degeneration and Regeneration*
Timing Degeneration Regeneration
6 hours Nucleus becomes displaced and Nissl bodies break up, turning the cell basophilic.[15] Axon spikes appear briefly at the proximal end.
1 day Macrophages begin entering the site of degeneration. This stimulates Schwann cell proliferation[19] Nerve function drops off with rupture of the blood-nerve barrier.[20] Distal stump begins to swell. Growth cones that contain a cytoskeleton form at the end of axon sprouts. Cell bodies of severed axons begin to enlarge as the cells become activated. The nucleus must become hypochromatic before elongation can occur.[21]
2 days   Mitochondria in the axoplasm for distal transport.
3 days Degenerative process involves all myelinated axons. Perineurial cells become enlarged and active. Axons shrink, and myelin begins to disintegrate. This is cleaned up by macrophages and Schwann cells and can take as many as 3 months.[14] Schwann cell proliferation peaks.[19]  
4 days   RNA production increases in the cell body. Axon sprouting may begin at day 4 in a clean transection.[21]
1 week Infiltration of inflammatory cells and RBCs occurs, along with myelin fragmentation. Schwann cells are activated and dividing. Growth cones can occasionally be seen within a Schwann cell, depending on the injury type. Swelling of axoplasm occurs in myelinated fibers, caused by mitochondria.
2 weeks Schwann cell proliferation has peaked, and endoneurial clearance is proceeding. As the contents of the tubes are removed, they shrink; if collagen is laid down, the reduced size can become permanent.[19, 22, 23] Schwann cells near regenerating axons stop myelin destruction and surround axons.[24]
3 weeks The distal portion of the axon is finishing the degenerative processes, and the myelin is fragmenting.[21] The axon is surrounded completely by myelin, and the organelle count in the Schwann cell drops. Most of the regenerating axons are found outside the degenerating endoneurial tubes.[24] Metabolic changes in the axon peak.[20] Axon sprouting usually starts and can cross the anastomoses.[21]
4 weeks   Remyelination starts, and perineurial cells decrease in size once the nerve is remyelinated.
*Times can vary extensively with the type and extent of damage.[25, 24, 14]
Table 3. Selection of Operative Procedure
Surgery Ends Can Approximate Vascularized Bed Graft Possible Proximal Portion Intact Distal Portion Intact
End-to-end closure Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Nerve graft No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vascularized graft No No Yes Yes Yes
Conduit No No No Yes Yes
Nerve transfer No No No No Yes
Table 4. Electrodiagnostic Characteristics of Nerve Injury
  Electromyography Nerve Conduction Study/Nerve Conduction Velocity
  Fibrillations Voluntary Muscle Unit Action Potential Sensory and Motor Latency Compound Motor Action Potential/Sensory Nerve Action Potential
Normal None Present Normal Normal
Nerve block/neurapraxia None None None across the block, normal above and below Normal above and below the block
Complete lesion/ axonotmesis, neurotmesis Present None Absent Absent
Incomplete Present Decreased in distribution of injury Normal or slightly prolonged (spread out) Reduced
Table 5. Common Donor Sites
Graft Donor Site Length Obtained Sensory Deficit
Distal posterior interosseous nerve 15-20 cm Dorsal wrist joint
Lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve 15 cm Lateral forearm surface
Medial antebrachial cutaneous 20 cm Medial and anterior surface of forearm
Superficial radial 25 cm Dorsal radial hand surface
Lateral femoral cutaneous 30 cm Lateral and thigh
Anterior femoral cutaneous 40 cm Medial and anterior thigh
Sural 40 cm Lateral foot surface and a portion of the heel
Saphenous 25-40 cm Medial foot surface
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.