ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Although vein conduits filled with fresh skeletal muscle have been used to bridge nerve defects both experimentally and clinically with good results, this approach has never been considered a valuable tool for reconstruction of nerve defects, and the technique has been abandoned. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the application of muscle-in-vein conduits for secondary digital nerves reconstruction, with particular emphasis on the surgical technique and results. METHODS: We present a retrospectively selected consecutive series of 21 digital nerve defects in 17 patients who were treated with vein conduits filled with fresh skeletal muscle for secondary nerve reconstruction. After a minimum follow-up of 18 months, all patients were studied with static and moving 2-point discrimination, Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing, Visual Analog Scale, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire. Outcome data were stratified according to the American Society for Surgery of the Hand guidelines, the modified Highet and Sander's criteria, and the Logic Tree. RESULTS: The average nerve gap bridged with the muscle-in-vein conduit was 2.2 cm (range, 1-3.5 cm). We classified 14 of 22 reconstructed nerves as excellent or good according to American Society for Surgery of the Hand guidelines, whereas 17 were between S4 and S3 using modified Highet and Sander's criteria. The Logic Tree yielded results between S4 and S3 in 14 of 21 reconstructed nerves. The average Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand survey scores were 22.5 for the disability/symptoms module and 21.4 and 17 for the sports/music and work subcomponents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Use of muscle-in-vein conduits should be considered and promoted for sensory nerve reconstruction for a number of reasons: the encouraging results with the technique; the abundant availability of both donor tissues; the flexibility of the conduit resulting from the combination of muscle and vein; the simplicity with which tubes can be fashioned; immunological compatibility; and the absence of adjunctive costs. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.
