Abstract
Synthetic nerve guides are occasionally used to repair nerve defects. The aim of the present work was to analyse the results of Neurolac™ use in a series of 23 patients. We operated on 28 nerve lesions located on various sites: arm (n = 1), elbow (n = 5), forearm (n = 4), wrist (n = 2), palm (n = 5), fingers (n = 11). Defects averaged 11.03 mm and were repaired using Neurolac™. After an average of 21.9 months’ follow up (3–45 months), subjective criteria (pain, cold intolerance, Quick DASH) and objective criteria (strength, Weber and Semmes–Weinstein sensitivity tests) were compared with the contralateral side. Average pain score was 2.17/10. Cold intolerance was reported in fifteen cases. Quick DASH averaged 35.37/100. Grip strength averaged 64.62% of the contralateral side. As regards sensitivity, the difference between the two sides was 18.89 on Weber’s test, and 46.92 on Semmes–Weinstein. Defect size did not affect the outcomes. We observed eight complications the most serious being two fistulizations of the Neurolac™ device close to a joint and one neuroma. Neurolac™ presents some advantages (resorption, semi-permeability, emergency use, tenseless repair) like other synthetic guides used for nerve regeneration and its transparency constitutes an added benefit. However, some difficulty in its handling and its expensiveness represent real disadvantages. Our results are not in favour of its use in repairing hand nerve defects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.