The purpose of this secondary analysis of pooled data from two randomised controlled trials was to explore the differential rate of recovery of sensory and motor functions over time following repair of median or ulnar nerve.
Methods
Recovery over two years following median or ulnar nerve repair at wrist level using the Rosen score was analysed in 67 patients.
Results
Within the sensory domain of the Rosen score, a substantial gap was observed between recovery of touch thresholds and discriminative touch. Within the motor domain, manual muscle strength and grip strength showed a closer and more parallel recovery rate.
Conclusion
The differential recovery rates in touch thresholds and discriminative touch after a peripheral nerve injury are likely due to neurobiological factors that cannot be influenced by surgical interventions. However, new knowledge about brain plasticity opens up the possibility that this differential recovery may diminish through the use of revised rehabilitation programs focused on the use of guided plasticity, and the timing of onset of sensory re-learning.
RosénB. Recovery of sensory and motor function after nerve repair: A rationale for evaluation. J Hand Ther1996; 9: 315–327.
2.
JaquetJBLuijsterburgAJKalmijnS. Median, ulnar, and combined median-ulnar nerve injuries: functional outcome and return to productivity. J Trauma2001; 51: 687–692.
3.
GalanakosSPZoubosABIgnatiadisI. Repair of complete nerve lacerations at the forearm: an outcome study using Rosen-Lundborg protocol. Microsurgery2011; 31: 253–262.
4.
VordemvenneTLangerMOchmanS. Long-term results after primary microsurgical repair of ulnar and median nerve injuries. Clin Neurol Neurosurg2007; 109: 263–271.
5.
AllodiIUdinaENavarroX. Specificity of peripheral nerve regeneration: interactions at the axon level. Prog Neurobiol2012; 98: 16–37.
6.
ChenRCohenLGHallettM. Nervous system reorganization following injury. Neuroscience2002; 111: 761–773.
7.
KandelERSchwarzJHJessellTM. Principles of neural science, 5th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013.
8.
MerzenichMMJenkinsWM. Reorganization of cortical representations of the hand following alterations of skin inputs induced by nerve injury, skin island transfers, and experience. J Hand Ther1993; 6: 89–104.
9.
LundborgG. Nerve injury and repair: regeneration, reconstruction, and cortical remodeling, 2nd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Inc., 2004.
10.
NovakCBAnastakisDJBeatonDE. Biomedical and psychosocial factors associated with disability after peripheral nerve injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am2011; 93: 929–936.
11.
ChemnitzABjorkmanADahlinLB. Functional outcome thirty years after median and ulnar nerve repair in childhood and adolescence. J Bone Joint Surg Am2013; 95: 329–337.
12.
RosenBLundborgGDahlinLB. Nerve repair: correlation of restitution of functional sensibility with specific cognitive capacities. J Hand Surg1994; 19: 452–458.
BoeckstynsMESorensenAIVinetaJF. Collagen conduit versus microsurgical neurorrhaphy: 2-year follow-up of a prospective, blinded clinical and electrophysiological multicenter randomized, controlled trial. J Hand Surgy2013; 38: 2405–2411.
15.
LundborgGRosenBDahlinL. Tubular repair of the median or ulnar nerve in the human forearm: a 5-year follow-up. J. Hand Surg [Br]2004; 29: 100–107.
16.
ArchibaldSJKrarupCShefnerJ. A collagen-based nerve guide conduit for peripheral nerve repair: an electrophysiological study of nerve regeneration in rodents and nonhuman primates. J Comp Neurol1991; 306: 685–696.
17.
RosénBJerosch-HeroldCRehabilitation after nerve surgery. In: DahlinLB (eds). Current treatment of nerve injuries and disorders, FESSH, Palme Publications, 2013, pp. 344–358.
18.
DellonA. Evaluation of sensibility and re-education of sensation in the hand, Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1981.
19.
Wynn-ParryCBSalterM. Sensory re-education after median nerve lesions. The Hand1976; 8: 250–257.
20.
DuffSTherapist's management of peripheral nerve injury. In: SkirvenOFedorczykAmadio (eds). Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity, Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, Mosby, 2011, pp. 619–633.
21.
RosenBLundborgG. A model instrument for the documentation of outcome after nerve repair. J Hand Surg2000; 25: 535–543.
22.
American Society of Hand Therapists (ASHT). Clinical assessment recommendations: ASHT, 1992.
23.
RosenBLundborgG. A new tactile gnosis instrument in sensibility testing. J Hand Ther1998; 11: 251–257.
24.
Jerosch-HeroldC. Assessment of sensibility after nerve injury and repair: a systematic review of evidence for validity, reliability and responsiveness of tests. Journal of Hand Surgery2005; 30: 252–264.
25.
SollermanCEjeskarA. Sollerman hand function test. A standardised method and its use in tetraplegic patients. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg1995; 29: 167–176.
26.
BrandsmaJWSchreudersJABirkeJA. Manual muscle testing. Intra-and interobserver reliability of the intrinsic muscles of the hand. J Hand Ther1995; 8: 185–190.
27.
MathiowetzVWeberKVollandG. Reliability and validity of grip and pinch strength evaluations. J Hand Surg1984; 9A: 222–226.
ChemnitzAAnderssonGRosenB. Poor electroneurography but excellent hand function 31 years after nerve repair in childhood. Neuroreport2013; 24: 6–9.
30.
SchreudersTARoebroeckMEJaquetJB. Measuring the strength of the intrinsic muscles of the hand in patients with ulnar and median nerve injuries: reliability of the Rotterdam Intrinsic Hand Myometer (RIHM). J Hand Surg [Am]2004; 29: 318–324.
31.
WallJTXuJWangX. Human brain plasticity: an emerging view of the multiple substrates and mechanisms that cause cortical changes and related sensory dysfunctions after injuries of sensory inputs from the body. Brain Res Brain Res Rev2002; 39: 181–215.
32.
HanssonTBrismarT. Loss of sensory discrimination after median nerve injury and activation in the primary somatosensory cortex on functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg2003; 99: 100–105.
33.
FornanderLNymanTHanssonT. Age- and time-dependent effects on functional outcome and cortical activation pattern in patients with median nerve injury: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurosurg2010; 113: 122–128.
34.
Bell-KrotoskiJAButerelWL. The force/time relationship of clinically used sensory testing instruments. J Hand Ther1988; 1: 76–85.
35.
JohnsonKVan BowenRHsiaoSThe perception of two points is not the spatial resolution threshold. In: BoivieJHanssonPLindblomU (eds). Touch, temperature and pain in health and disease: mechanisms and assessments, Seattle, WA: IASP Press, 1994, pp. 389–404.
36.
LundborgGRosenB. The two-point discrimination test - time for a re-appraisal?J Hand Surg [Br]2004; 29: 418–422.
37.
DuffauH. Brain plasticity: from pathophysiological mechanisms to therapeutic applications. J Clin Neurosci2006; 13: 885–897.
38.
LundborgGRosenB. Hand function after nerve repair. Acta Physiologica2007; 189: 207–217.
39.
BjörkmanACerebral reorganization after nerve injury. In: DahlinLB (eds). Current treatment of nerve injuries and disorders, FESSH, Palme Publications, 2013, pp. 81–92.
40.
ChengAS. Use of early tactile stimulation in rehabilitation of digital nerve injuries. Am J Occup Ther2000; 54: 159–165.
41.
ChengASHungLWongJM. A prospective study of early tactile stimulation after digital nerve repair. Clin Orthop2001; 384: 169–175.
42.
RosénBLundborgG. Enhanced sensory recovery after median nerve repair using cortical audio-tactile interaction. A randomised multicentre study. J Hand Surg2007; 32E: 31–37.
43.
SvensBRosénB. Early sensory re-learning after median repair using mirror-training and sense substitution – a case report. Hand Therapy2009; 14: 75–82.
44.
MillerLKChesterRJerosch-HeroldC. Effects of sensory reeducation programs on functional hand sensibility after median and ulnar repair: a systematic review. J Hand Ther2012; 25: 297–307.
