Posterior Interosseous Nerve Graft: Utilizing External Landmarks and Anthropometric Ratios to Predict Available Length for Digital Nerve Reconstruction in a Cadaveric Study

Abstract

French

Objective:

In digital nerve defects that require grafting, autografts remain the efficacious option. The sensory posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) is an ideal choice as it is of similar caliber to digital nerves and leaves no donor morbidity upon resection. However, a finite length of harvestable PIN exists, and considerable variations of this length have been reported in the literature. There exists no predictive model to estimate this length. We sought to determine a method to accurately predict the available length of PIN based on individual patient anthropometry.

Methods:

A cadaveric dissection study was performed in a fresh tissue laboratory. The length of the sensory branch of the PIN and various anthropometric measurements were made in respect to surface anatomy of the ulna to develop a predictable ratio for available PIN donor graft.

Results:

A total of 16 specimens were obtained. On average the length of the PIN was 5.7 cm (range: 3.3-9. cm) and the length of the ulna was 25.7 cm (range: 23.5-30.6 cm). The ratio of PIN to ulnar length was 0.222 (r = 0.4651). Using one-fifth the length of the ulna, the mean predicted length of the PIN was 5.14 cm (range: 4.7-6.1 cm). On univariate analysis, there was no significant difference between the measured and predicted PIN length (P = .249).

Conclusion:

An anthropometric ratio predicated on reproducible surface anatomy of the ulna is a useful tool in predicting the sensory PIN length. Such a prediction may be a useful in guiding patient discussions concerning surgical options for digital nerve reconstruction.

Keywords

hand surgery peripheral nerve posterior interosseous nerve ratio reconstruction digital nerve graft

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Mermans

Franssen

Serroyen

Van der Hulst

. Digital nerve injuries: a review of predictors of sensory recovery after microsurgical digital nerve repair. Hand (N Y). 2012;7(3):233–241.

Mauch

Bae

Shubinets

Lin

. A systematic review of sensory outcomes of digital nerve gap reconstruction with autograft, allograft, and conduit. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;82(4S suppl 3):S247–S255.

Ray

Mackinnon

. Management of nerve gaps: autografts, allografts, nerve transfers, and end-to-side neurorrhaphy. Exp Neurol. 2010;223(1):77–85.

Paprottka

Wolf

Harder

, et al. Sensory recovery outcome after digital nerve repair in relation to different reconstructive techniques: meta-analysis and systematic review. Plast Surg Int. 2013;2013:704589.

Stang

Stollwerck

Prommersberger

van Schoonhoven

. Posterior interosseus nerve vs. medial cutaneous nerve of the forearm: differences in digital nerve reconstruction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(6):875–880.

Poppler

Davidge

Armstrong

Fox

Mackinnon

. Alternatives to sural nerve grafts in the upper extremity. Hand (N Y). 2015;10(1):68–75.

Higgins

Fisher

Serletti

Orlando

. Assessment of nerve graft donor sites used for reconstruction of traumatic digital nerve defects. J Hand Surg Am. 2002;27(2):286–292.

Slutsky

. A practical approach to nerve grafting in the upper extremity. Atlas Hand Clin. 2005;10:73–92.

Nunley

Ugino

Goldner

Regan

Urbaniak

. Use of the anterior branch of the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve as a graft for the repair of defects of the digital nerve. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(4):563–567.

10.

Pilanci

Ozel

Basaran

, et al.

Is there a profit to use the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve as a graft source in digital nerve reconstruction?

Microsurgery. 2014;34(5):367–371.

11.

Tenny

Lewis

. Digital nerve-grafting for traumatic defects. Use of the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(9):1375–1379.

12.

Grutter

Desilva

Meehan

Desilva

. The accuracy of distal posterior interosseous and anterior interosseous nerve injection. J Hand Surg Am. 2004;29(5):865–870.

13.

Gay

Harbst

Hansen

Laskowski

Berger

Kaufman

. Effect of partial wrist denervation on wrist kinesthesia: wrist denervation does not impair proprioception. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(11):1774–1779.

14.

Patterson

Van Niel

Shimko

Pace

Seitz

Jr . Proprioception of the wrist following posterior interosseous sensory neurectomy. J Hand Surg Am. 2010;35(1):52–56.

15.

Ortiz

Westenberg

Langhammer

Knaus

Chen

Eberlin

. Nerve diameter in the hand: a cadaveric study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(3): e2155.

16.

Wallace

Coupland

. Variations in the nerves of the thumb and index finger. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1975;57(4):491–494.

17.

Waters

Schwartz

. Posterior interosseous nerve: an anatomic study of potential nerve grafts. J Hand Surg Am. 1993;18(4):743–745.

18.

Elgafy

Ebraheim

Yeasting

. The anatomy of the posterior interosseous nerve as a graft. J Hand Surg Am. 2000;25(5):930–935.

19.

Apaydin

Acar

, et al. Anatomic pattern of the terminal branches of posterior interosseous nerve. Clin Anat. 2005;18(4):290–295.

20.

Tubbs

Salter

Wellons

3rd Blount

Oakes

. Superficial surgical landmarks for identifying the posterior interosseous nerve. J Neurosurg. 2006;104(5):796–799.

21.

Abrams

Ziets

Lieber

Botte

. Anatomy of the radial nerve motor branches in the forearm. J Hand Surg Am. 1997;22(2):232–237.

22.

Jariwala

Krishnan

Soames

Wigderowitz

. Important anatomical relationships of the posterior interosseous nerve in the distal forearm for surgical planning: a cadaveric study. J Wrist Surg. 2014;3(1):60–63.

23.

Das

Kulkarni

Raviprasanna

. Morphometric study of posterior interosseous nerve to determine its utility in nerve grafting. Int J Anatom Res. 2017;5(2.3):4012–4014.

24.

Reissis

Stirrat

Manek

Dunkerton

. The terminal branch of posterior interosseous nerve: a useful donor for digital nerve grafting. J Hand Surg Br. 1992;17(6):638–640.

25.

Gregory

Goutard

Gregory

Hurst

Merlini

Pierrart

. A cadaveric study of the posterior interosseous nerve and its branches at the level of the distal radius. J Hand Surg Global Online. 2019;1(2):70–73.

26.

Chan

. Biostatistics 104: correlational analysis. Singapore Med J. 2003;44(12):614–619.

27.

Kim

Lee

. Ultrasonographic findings of posterior interosseous nerve syndrome. Ultrasonography. 2017;36(4):363–369.

28.

Ehretsman

Novak

Mackinnon

. Subjective recovery of nerve graft donor site. Ann Plast Surg. 1999;43(6):606–612.

29.

Hinds

Gottschalk

Capo

. The Pronator quadratus and distal anterior interosseous nerve: a cadaveric study. J Wrist Surg. 2015;4(3):183–187.

30.

Stylianos

Konstantinos

Pavlos

Aliki

. Brachial branches of the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve: a case report with its clinical significance and a short review of the literature. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2016;7(3):443–446.

31.

Chiavaras

Jacobson

Billone

Lawton

. Sonography of the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve with magnetic resonance imaging and anatomic correlation. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33(8):1475–1483.

32.

Mackinnon

Dellon

. The overlap pattern of the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve and the superficial branch of the radial nerve. J Hand Surg Am. 1985;10(4):522–526.

33.

Seema

. Study of sural nerve complex in human cadavers. ISRN Anat. 2013;827276.

34.

Mahakkanukrauh

Chomsung

. Anatomical variations of the sural nerve. Clin Anat. 2002;15(4):263–266.