OBJECTIVE: Biomaterials used to restore digital nerve continuity after injury associated with a defect may influence ultimate outcomes. An evaluation of matched cohorts undergoing digital nerve gap reconstruction was conducted to compare processed nerve allograft (PNA) and conduits. Based on scientific evidence and historical controls, we hypothesized that outcomes of PNA would be better than for conduit reconstruction.
METHODS: We identified matched cohorts based on patient characteristics, medical history, mechanism of injury, and time to repair for digital nerve injuries with gaps up to 25 mm. Data were stratified into 2 gap length groups: short gaps of 14 mm or less and long gaps of 15 to 25 mm. Meaningful sensory recovery was defined as a Medical Research Council scale of S3 or greater. Comparisons of meaningful recovery were made by repair method between and across the gap length groups.
RESULTS: Eight institutions contributed matched data sets for 110 subjects with 162 injuries. Outcomes data were available in 113 PNA and 49 conduit repairs. Meaningful recovery was reported in 61% of the conduit group, compared with 88% in the PNA group. In the group with a 14-mm or less gap, conduit and PNA outcomes were 67% and 92% meaningful recovery, respectively. In the 15- to 25-mm gap length group, conduit and PNA outcomes were 45% and 85% meaningful recovery, respectively. There were no reported adverse events in either treatment group.
CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of digital nerve reconstruction in this study using PNA were consistent and significantly better than those of conduits across all groups. As gap lengths increased, the proportion of patients in the conduit group with meaningful recovery decreased. This study supports the use of PNA for nerve gap reconstruction in digital nerve reconstructions up to 25 mm.
METHODS: Therapeutic III.

BACKGROUND: Current repair options for peripheral nerve injuries where tension-free gap closure is not possible include allograft, processed nerve allograft, and hollow tube conduit. Here we report on the outcomes from a multicenter prospective, randomized, patient- and evaluator-blinded, pilot study comparing processed nerve allograft and hollow conduit for digital nerve reconstructions in the hand.
METHODS: Across 4 centers, consented participants meeting inclusion criteria while not meeting exclusion criteria were randomized intraoperatively to either processed nerve allograft or hollow conduit. Standard sensory and safety assessments were conducted at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after reconstruction. The primary outcome was static 2-point discrimination (s2PD) testing. Participants and assessors were blinded to treatment. The contralateral digit served as the control.
RESULTS: We randomized 23 participants with 31 digital nerve injuries. Sixteen participants with 20 repairs had at least 6 months of follow-up while 12-month follow-up was available for 15 repairs. There were no significant differences in participant and baseline characteristics between treatment groups. The predominant nerve injury was laceration/sharp transection. The mean ± SD length of the nerve gap prior to repair was 12 ± 4 mm (5-20 mm) for both groups. The average s2PD for processed allograft was 5 ± 1 mm (n = 6) compared with 8 ± 5 mm (n = 9) for hollow conduits. The average moving 2PD for processed allograft was 5 ± 1 mm compared with 7 ± 5 mm for hollow conduits. All injuries randomized to processed nerve allograft returned some degree of s2PD as compared with 75% of the repairs in the conduit group. Two hollow conduits and one allograft were lost due to infection during the study.
CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, patients whose digital nerve reconstructions were performed with processed nerve allografts had significantly improved and more consistent functional sensory outcomes compared with hollow conduits.