Cargando…

Outcomes following use of VersaWrap nerve protector in treatment of patients with recurrent compressive neuropathies

Epineural scarring following previous carpal or cubital tunnel release can lead to pain and permanent dysfunction. To prevent this cascade, nerve wraps are an option. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes following use of VersaWrap nerve protector during surgical decompression and neuro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hones, Keegan M., Nichols, David Spencer, Barker, Haley, Cox, Elizabeth, Hones, Jaime A., Chim, Harvey
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10071003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37025263
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1123375
_version_ 1785019106177581056
author Hones, Keegan M.
Nichols, David Spencer
Barker, Haley
Cox, Elizabeth
Hones, Jaime A.
Chim, Harvey
author_facet Hones, Keegan M.
Nichols, David Spencer
Barker, Haley
Cox, Elizabeth
Hones, Jaime A.
Chim, Harvey
author_sort Hones, Keegan M.
collection PubMed
description Epineural scarring following previous carpal or cubital tunnel release can lead to pain and permanent dysfunction. To prevent this cascade, nerve wraps are an option. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes following use of VersaWrap nerve protector during surgical decompression and neurolysis in patients with recurrent compressive neuropathies in the upper extremity. Twenty patients comprised the patient cohort, with a mean postoperative follow-up time of 139 days (range: 42–356 days). There were 13 females and 7 males, with a mean age of 43.4 years. Fourteen surgeries were performed for revision cubital tunnel, 5 for revision carpal tunnel, and 1 for revision radial tunnel syndrome. Average duration of symptoms prior to revision surgery with VersaWrap was 2 years (range 9 months to 6 years). Postoperatively, the mean DASH score was 57.7 and VAS 3.1. Mean s2PD median distribution was 7.3, s2PD ulnar distribution 8.9, m2PD median distribution 6.9 and m2PD ulnar distribution 7.3. All patients had subjective improvement of symptoms and were satisfied with their result. No patients in our cohort required further revisional surgery. In conclusion, the use of VersaWrap as a nerve protector following revision surgery for recurrent compressive neuropathies in the upper extremity was safe and effective. Level of Evidence: IV; retrospective case series
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10071003
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100710032023-04-05 Outcomes following use of VersaWrap nerve protector in treatment of patients with recurrent compressive neuropathies Hones, Keegan M. Nichols, David Spencer Barker, Haley Cox, Elizabeth Hones, Jaime A. Chim, Harvey Front Surg Surgery Epineural scarring following previous carpal or cubital tunnel release can lead to pain and permanent dysfunction. To prevent this cascade, nerve wraps are an option. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes following use of VersaWrap nerve protector during surgical decompression and neurolysis in patients with recurrent compressive neuropathies in the upper extremity. Twenty patients comprised the patient cohort, with a mean postoperative follow-up time of 139 days (range: 42–356 days). There were 13 females and 7 males, with a mean age of 43.4 years. Fourteen surgeries were performed for revision cubital tunnel, 5 for revision carpal tunnel, and 1 for revision radial tunnel syndrome. Average duration of symptoms prior to revision surgery with VersaWrap was 2 years (range 9 months to 6 years). Postoperatively, the mean DASH score was 57.7 and VAS 3.1. Mean s2PD median distribution was 7.3, s2PD ulnar distribution 8.9, m2PD median distribution 6.9 and m2PD ulnar distribution 7.3. All patients had subjective improvement of symptoms and were satisfied with their result. No patients in our cohort required further revisional surgery. In conclusion, the use of VersaWrap as a nerve protector following revision surgery for recurrent compressive neuropathies in the upper extremity was safe and effective. Level of Evidence: IV; retrospective case series Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-03-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10071003/ /pubmed/37025263 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1123375 Text en © 2023 Hones, Nichols, Barker, Cox, Hones and Chim. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Surgery
Hones, Keegan M.
Nichols, David Spencer
Barker, Haley
Cox, Elizabeth
Hones, Jaime A.
Chim, Harvey
Outcomes following use of VersaWrap nerve protector in treatment of patients with recurrent compressive neuropathies
title Outcomes following use of VersaWrap nerve protector in treatment of patients with recurrent compressive neuropathies
title_full Outcomes following use of VersaWrap nerve protector in treatment of patients with recurrent compressive neuropathies
title_fullStr Outcomes following use of VersaWrap nerve protector in treatment of patients with recurrent compressive neuropathies
title_full_unstemmed Outcomes following use of VersaWrap nerve protector in treatment of patients with recurrent compressive neuropathies
title_short Outcomes following use of VersaWrap nerve protector in treatment of patients with recurrent compressive neuropathies
title_sort outcomes following use of versawrap nerve protector in treatment of patients with recurrent compressive neuropathies
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10071003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37025263
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1123375
work_keys_str_mv AT honeskeeganm outcomesfollowinguseofversawrapnerveprotectorintreatmentofpatientswithrecurrentcompressiveneuropathies
AT nicholsdavidspencer outcomesfollowinguseofversawrapnerveprotectorintreatmentofpatientswithrecurrentcompressiveneuropathies
AT barkerhaley outcomesfollowinguseofversawrapnerveprotectorintreatmentofpatientswithrecurrentcompressiveneuropathies
AT coxelizabeth outcomesfollowinguseofversawrapnerveprotectorintreatmentofpatientswithrecurrentcompressiveneuropathies
AT honesjaimea outcomesfollowinguseofversawrapnerveprotectorintreatmentofpatientswithrecurrentcompressiveneuropathies
AT chimharvey outcomesfollowinguseofversawrapnerveprotectorintreatmentofpatientswithrecurrentcompressiveneuropathies