PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: There is no clear census as to which operative technique provides better recovery for radial nerve injuries. Therefore, in this systematic review, we examined the functional recovery, patient-reported outcomes, and complications of tendon transfer (TT) and nerve transfer (NT).
UNASSIGNED: Five electronic databases were searched for studies (>10 cases per study) comparing NT and TT regardless of the study design (observational or experimental). Manual search was also conducted. The quality was assessed by the NIH tool. Outcomes included functional recovery, patient-reported outcomes (DASH score, satisfaction, and inability to return to work), and complications. The prevalence was pooled across studies using STATA software, and then, a subgroup analysis based on the intervention type.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty-one studies (542 patients) were analyzed. Excellent recovery, assessed by the Bincaz scale, was higher in the TT group (29 % vs. 11 %) as well as failure to extend the fingers (49 % vs. 9 %). No significant difference was noted between both groups regarding DASH score (mean difference = -2.76; 95 % CI: -12.66: 6.93). Satisfaction was great in the TT group (89 %) with a limited proportion of patients unable to return to work (7 %). Complications were slightly higher in the TT group (8 % vs. 7 %) while 18 % of patients undergoing TT requiring revision surgery. Radial deviation was encountered in 18 % of patients in the TT group and 0 % in the NT group. The quality was good, fair, and poor in 2, 13, and 6, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: In radial nerve injuries, although tendon transfer may seem to provide better functional motor recovery than nerve transfer, it is associated with a higher rate of failure to extend the finger. Given the large confidence interval, the accuracy of this finding is questioned. However, a great proportion of those patients require revision surgery afterward. Additionally, tendon transfer is associated with a greater complication rate than nerve transfer, particularly radial deviation.
UNASSIGNED: Five electronic databases were searched for studies (>10 cases per study) comparing NT and TT regardless of the study design (observational or experimental). Manual search was also conducted. The quality was assessed by the NIH tool. Outcomes included functional recovery, patient-reported outcomes (DASH score, satisfaction, and inability to return to work), and complications. The prevalence was pooled across studies using STATA software, and then, a subgroup analysis based on the intervention type.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty-one studies (542 patients) were analyzed. Excellent recovery, assessed by the Bincaz scale, was higher in the TT group (29 % vs. 11 %) as well as failure to extend the fingers (49 % vs. 9 %). No significant difference was noted between both groups regarding DASH score (mean difference = -2.76; 95 % CI: -12.66: 6.93). Satisfaction was great in the TT group (89 %) with a limited proportion of patients unable to return to work (7 %). Complications were slightly higher in the TT group (8 % vs. 7 %) while 18 % of patients undergoing TT requiring revision surgery. Radial deviation was encountered in 18 % of patients in the TT group and 0 % in the NT group. The quality was good, fair, and poor in 2, 13, and 6, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: In radial nerve injuries, although tendon transfer may seem to provide better functional motor recovery than nerve transfer, it is associated with a higher rate of failure to extend the finger. Given the large confidence interval, the accuracy of this finding is questioned. However, a great proportion of those patients require revision surgery afterward. Additionally, tendon transfer is associated with a greater complication rate than nerve transfer, particularly radial deviation.
摘要：
■关于哪种手术技术可以为the神经损伤提供更好的恢复，尚无明确的普查。因此,在这次系统审查中，我们检查了功能恢复，患者报告的结果，肌腱转移（TT）和神经转移（NT）的并发症。
■搜索了五个电子数据库，以进行比较NT和TT的研究（每个研究>10例），而不考虑研究设计（观察性或实验性）。还进行了手动搜索。通过NIH工具评估质量。结果包括功能恢复，患者报告的结果(DASH评分，满意,和无法重返工作岗位)，和并发症。使用STATA软件汇总研究中的患病率，然后,基于干预类型的亚组分析。
■分析了21项研究（542例患者）。良好的恢复，通过宾卡兹量表评估，TT组较高(29%vs.11％）以及未能伸出手指（49％vs.9%)。两组在DASH评分方面无显著差异(平均差=-2.76;95%CI:-12.66:6.93)。TT组的满意度很高（89％），无法重返工作岗位的患者比例有限（7％）。TT组的并发症略高（8％vs.7％），而接受TT的患者中有18％需要翻修手术。TT组中18％的患者和NT组中0％的患者出现径向偏离。质量很好,公平,差分别为2、13和6。
■在桡神经损伤中，虽然肌腱转移似乎比神经转移提供更好的功能运动恢复，它与伸出手指的失败率较高有关。鉴于较大的置信区间，这一发现的准确性受到质疑。然而,这些患者中有很大一部分需要事后进行翻修手术。此外,肌腱转移比神经转移并发症发生率高，特别是径向偏差。
■搜索了五个电子数据库，以进行比较NT和TT的研究（每个研究>10例），而不考虑研究设计（观察性或实验性）。还进行了手动搜索。通过NIH工具评估质量。结果包括功能恢复，患者报告的结果(DASH评分，满意,和无法重返工作岗位)，和并发症。使用STATA软件汇总研究中的患病率，然后,基于干预类型的亚组分析。
■分析了21项研究（542例患者）。良好的恢复，通过宾卡兹量表评估，TT组较高(29%vs.11％）以及未能伸出手指（49％vs.9%)。两组在DASH评分方面无显著差异(平均差=-2.76;95%CI:-12.66:6.93)。TT组的满意度很高（89％），无法重返工作岗位的患者比例有限（7％）。TT组的并发症略高（8％vs.7％），而接受TT的患者中有18％需要翻修手术。TT组中18％的患者和NT组中0％的患者出现径向偏离。质量很好,公平,差分别为2、13和6。
■在桡神经损伤中，虽然肌腱转移似乎比神经转移提供更好的功能运动恢复，它与伸出手指的失败率较高有关。鉴于较大的置信区间，这一发现的准确性受到质疑。然而,这些患者中有很大一部分需要事后进行翻修手术。此外,肌腱转移比神经转移并发症发生率高，特别是径向偏差。
