• Users Online: 346
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 27  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 73-76

Does the patient satisfaction correlate with sensorial recovery after primary repair of digital nerves and flexor tendons?


1 Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey
2 Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
3 Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Division of Hand Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey
4 Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Division of Hand Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey

Date of Web Publication27-Mar-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Egemen Ayhan
Mutlukent Mh. Angora Evleri, No: 2/6, Cankaya, Ankara
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/tjps.tjps_57_18

Get Permissions

  Abstract 


Background: We aimed to evaluate the correlation of patients' satisfaction with sensorial evaluation results after primary repair of digital nerves and flexor tendons. Materials and Methods: In total, 31 fingers of 25 patients that underwent primary repair for clear-cut digital nerve and flexor tendon injuries were included in this retrospective study. The mean age of the patients was 34.8 ± 9.4 years. Patients' gender, age at admission, trauma date, and injured finger were obtained from patients' folders. We called the patients for the last follow-up and used two-point discrimination (2PD) and Semmes–Weinstein monofilament (SWM) tests to evaluate sensorial recovery. Patients were interviewed for hand dominance, cold intolerance, and if they were satisfied. Visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the satisfaction of patients related to the injured finger. We analyzed correlations between VAS score and age, follow-up period, 2PD score, SWM score, cold intolerance score, gender, hand dominance, and the injured finger. Results: Patients' satisfaction was significantly correlated only with cold intolerance score. There was no significant correlation between patients' satisfaction and age, follow-up period, gender, hand dominance, injured finger, 2PD score, and SWM score. Conclusion: Our study revealed that patients' satisfaction was not only correlated with sensorial recovery scores but also significantly negatively correlated only with cold intolerance, and novel modalities to treat this phenomenon are required. Moreover, patients' satisfaction was not related to age, gender, hand dominance, and the injured finger; hence, surgeons should focus on meticulous repair of digital nerves in any age, for any gender, and any finger of patients.

Keywords: Cold intolerance, digital nerve injury, flexor tendon laceration, patients' satisfaction, sensorial recovery


How to cite this article:
Ayhan E, Ciftaslan A, Bagir M, Eskandari MM. Does the patient satisfaction correlate with sensorial recovery after primary repair of digital nerves and flexor tendons?. Turk J Plast Surg 2019;27:73-6

How to cite this URL:
Ayhan E, Ciftaslan A, Bagir M, Eskandari MM. Does the patient satisfaction correlate with sensorial recovery after primary repair of digital nerves and flexor tendons?. Turk J Plast Surg [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Nov 14];27:73-6. Available from: http://www.turkjplastsurg.org/text.asp?2019/27/2/73/255009




  Introduction Top


In 1834, Bell[1] reported, “We find every organ of sense, with the exception of that of touch, more perfect in brutes than in man. But in the sense of touch, seated in the hand, man claims the superiority; and it is of consequence to our conclusion that we should observe why it is so.” Today, we can undoubtedly conclude that daily activities of civilized humans are endowed with this incomparable sensation of the hand, through its tiny digital nerves. As a matter of course, digital nerves have arisen as the most frequently injured peripheral nerve with simultaneous tendon, bone, and vascular injuries.[2],[3],[4]

Despite developments in microsurgical techniques, patients' satisfaction after digital nerve repair have not been consistently satisfactory, and the concomitant injuries probably play a role.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] In isolated proper digital nerve injuries, it is expected that patients' satisfaction would correlate with objective test results of sensorial recovery (e.g., two-point discrimination [2PD] and Semmes–Weinstein monofilament [SWM] tests). But, what about if there is an accompanying flexor tendon zone 2 injury with a proper digital nerve injury? In such patients, it is possible that the patients would not care about their recovery of sensation when their fingers' motion is the matter. Therefore, we hypothesized that patients' satisfaction was not correlated with sensorial recovery when there was an accompanying flexor tendon injury to digital nerve injury. Hence, our aim was to evaluate the correlation of patients' satisfaction with sensorial evaluation results after primary repair of digital nerves and flexor tendons.


  Materials and Methods Top


Between January 01, 2009, and January 01, 2017, the patients who underwent primary repair for clear-cut digital nerve and flexor tendon injuries were included in this retrospective study. The study was approved by Mersin University clinical researches ethical committee. The inclusion criteria for patients were as follows: being between 18 and 65 years of age, willing to cooperate for final evaluation, and having at least 6 months of postoperative follow-up period. Exclusion criteria were as follows: patients with insufficient preoperative data, crush or saw injuries of fingers, both digital nerve injuries in a single finger, digital nerve injuries occurring with phalanx fractures, amputation injuries, and bilateral hand injuries. In total, 31 fingers of 25 patients were included in this study. Primary epineural repair for proper digital nerve lacerations was performed under the surgical microscope with 8:0 or 9:0 polypropylene suture at the same day of emergency service admission. Simultaneous flexor tendon lacerations were repaired with 3:0 polypropylene (modified Kessler or four-strand core suture technique) and with 4:0 or 5:0 polypropylene (circumferential epitendinous suture technique). Surgeons working in Mersin University, faculty of medicine Orthopedics and Traumatology Department, Hand Surgery Division, performed all procedures. A postoperative 3 or 4 weeks of protective dorsal splinting regimen was applied regarding the quality of tendon repair. No specific sensory re-education program was prescribed. Patients' gender, age at admission, trauma date, and injured finger were obtained from patients' computerized data, hospital charts, and folders.

We called the patients for the last follow-up evaluation, and the patients gave written informed consent. We used static 2PD and SWM tests to evaluate the recovered sensibility of the innervated area of the injured nerve. We used the Dellon 2-Point Disk-Criminator in a longitudinal direction of the related autonomous zone of injured digital nerve to measure the distance. The 2PD distances (mm) were then converted to a single number using an ordinal scale (≤6 mm = 4, 7–10 mm = 3, 11–15 mm = 2, and ≥16 mm = 1).[13] A 20-piece full kit of SWM (Touch-Test®, North Coast Medical, Inc., Gilroy, CA, USA) was used to evaluate the cutaneous pressure threshold. Each monofilament was vertically pressed for 2 s onto the skin until it slightly bent, while the patients were holding her eyes closed. We converted the results to a five-point numerical ordinal scale according to the procedure described by Bell-Krotoski [Table 1].[14] Patients were interviewed for hand dominance, cold intolerance, and if they were satisfied. Cold intolerance were categorized as none = 4, mild = 3, moderate = 2, and severe = 1. Visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the satisfaction of patients related to the injured finger.[15] Each patient was requested to quantify their satisfaction from 0 to 100 in a decimal order for their every finger individually. Finally, we questioned the patients scored ≤50 if they would wish revision operation. Throughout the follow-up evaluations, we used the uninjured contralateral finger as controls.
Table 1: Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments five-point numerical ordinal scale

Click here to view


We analyzed patients for correlations between VAS score and age, follow-up period, 2PD score, SWM score, cold intolerance score, gender, hand dominance, and the injured finger. Finally, we analyzed all of the cases (31 fingers) for correlations between hand dominance, gender, and the injured finger.

The correlation statistics were analyzed with Spearman's rank correlation for nonparametric variables and with Pearson correlation for parametric variables. Statistical significance was accepted at P < 0.05.


  Results Top


There were 25 patients who underwent primary epineural repair for 31 proper digital nerve and flexor tendon zone 2 lacerations (18 fingers of 13 men and 13 fingers of 12 women). The mean follow-up period was 31.7 ± 21.1 months. The baseline characteristics were shown in [Table 2].
Table 2: Baseline characteristics of the patients

Click here to view


The median score for VAS was 60 (0–100), and there were 12 fingers with VAS scores of ≤50. The median score of 2PD was 3 (7–10 mm) and of SWM was 3 (0.6–2.0 g). When the correlation statistics were analyzed, patients' satisfaction was significantly correlated only with cold intolerance score (r = 0.396, P = 0.027). There was no significant correlation between patients' satisfaction and age, follow-up period, gender, hand dominance, injured finger, 2PD score, and SWM score [Table 3].
Table 3: Correlation analysis of variables

Click here to view


In our study, 21 of 31 fingers (67.7%) had cold intolerance and 14 of them (45.1%) reported to have moderate or severe cold intolerance. When all of the fingers were considered [Table 4], there was a highly significant tendency to be injured for the ulnar fingers (e.g., ring and small) of dominant hands and for the radial fingers (e.g., thumb and index) of nondominant hands (r = −0.550, P < 0.001). Furthermore, nondominant hands of the women and dominant hands of the men were significantly correlated to be injured (r = 0.392, P < 0.05). None of the patients wished revision operation for his/her numbness (digital nerve exploration and revision surgery).
Table 4: Correlation analysis of hand dominance, gender, and injured finger in all of the fingers

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Our rationale was that the patients would not care about their recovery of sensation after primary repair of digital nerve when there was a simultaneous flexor tendon injury. We assessed correlation of patients' satisfaction with results of the sensorial evaluation after primary repair of digital nerves and flexor tendons.

This study has several limitations. First, this was a retrospective study and digital nerve repairs were not performed by the same surgeon. Second, the small number of cases was an important limitation. However, this was due to our strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. We only included the unilateral proper digital nerve sharp lacerations. To impede confounders, we excluded fingers with high-energy injuries, both digital nerve injuries of single finger, digital nerve injuries with phalanx fractures, amputations, and bilateral hand injuries. Most of the studies above included one or more of those confounders.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[11],[12],[16] Finally, not to include the concomitant unilateral digital arterial injury as an independent variable was the last limitation. Although Fakin et al.[16] found no correlation between sensory outcome and digital artery injury in their recent study, the concomitant arterial injury might have affected the cold intolerance of our patients. Our approach to unilateral digital artery injury was surgeon dependent, and some of us would not repair the digital artery if there was no circulatory compromise. Therefore, the documentation of vascular injuries in surgical notes was not trustable and that was why we obliged to ignore it.

Our results demonstrated that most of the injured fingers (67.7%) developed cold intolerance and almost half of them (45.1%) were moderate or severe. Cold intolerance was a well-known sequel following nerve injury.[16],[17],[18],[19] However, the pathophysiology of cold intolerance stays uncertain.[19] Apart from hand injuries, cold intolerance occurs in various vasospastic disorders, such as systemic lupus erythematosus and Raynaud's phenomenon.[20] Several studies reported that cold sensitivity was not purely vascular phenomena and neurogenic pathways probably have role.[18],[21] In our study, there was no correlation between cold intolerance and sensorial recovery, similar to studies of Collins et al.[17] and Freedlander.[22] Although the pathophysiology of cold intolerance is a matter of debate, there is a general agreement that cold intolerance is an important negatively affecting factor on patients' activity of daily living.[13],[17],[18],[23] Supporting this fact, in our series, there was no significant correlation between patients' satisfaction and age, gender, follow-up period, 2PD score, SWM score, hand dominance, and the injured finger, but the cold intolerance was the only factor associated with patients' satisfaction.

We found that after primary repair of proper digital nerves, patients' satisfaction was not correlated with objective evaluation tests of sensorial recovery when there was a concomitant flexor tendon injury. Both 2PD and SWM tests were reported to be valid and reliable measurement tests for functional sensibility.[24],[25] However, how did the discordance appear between objective outcomes and patients' satisfaction? The answer might be related to the concomitant flexor tendon injury. The patients did not care about their recovery of sensation when their fingers' motion was the matter of subject. In other words, the patients' satisfaction was probably based on the motion of the finger, not on the recovery of sensation for these injuries. To impede bias, we did not ask any question and did not perform any measurement about patients' fingers range of motion; nevertheless, patients probably focused on the range of motion of their fingers during the simple question of patients' satisfaction.

None of the patients wished revision surgery for his numbness. We think that this is due to socioeconomic status. Our patients were generally heavy workers and did not care about the fine sensibility. Certainly, the best way is to raise the awareness of hand injury prevention in this high-risk group.

We found a tendency of the ulnar fingers (e.g., ring and small) to be injured in dominant hands of men and of the radial fingers (e.g., thumb and index) in nondominant hands of women. This finding was probably because of the more used grasping action of dominant hand of men (e.g., grasping a sharp material), and the more used supportive action of nondominant hand of women (e.g., holding the vegetable while cutting).


  Conclusion Top


Patient satisfaction was not related to age, gender, hand dominance, and the injured finger; hence, surgeons should focus on meticulous repair of digital nerves in any age, for any gender, and for any finger of the patients. Cold intolerance was the only factor associated with patients' satisfaction and novel modalities to avoid this phenomenon is a good subject for future researches.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patients have given their consent for their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Bell C, editor. Of sensibility and touch. 3rd ed. The Hand: Its Mechanisms and Vital Endowments as Evincing Design. London: William Pickering; 1834. p. 170.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
McAllister RM, Gilbert SE, Calder JS, Smith PJ. The epidemiology and management of upper limb peripheral nerve injuries in modern practice. J Hand Surg Br 1996;21:4-13.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Thorsén F, Rosberg HE, Steen Carlsson K, Dahlin LB. Digital nerve injuries: Epidemiology, results, costs, and impact on daily life. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2012;46:184-90.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Weinzweig N, Chin G, Mead M, Stone A, Nagle D, Gonzalez M, et al. Recovery of sensibility after digital neurorrhaphy: A clinical investigation of prognostic factors. Ann Plast Surg 2000;44:610-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
al-Ghazal SK, McKiernan M, Khan K, McCann J. Results of clinical assessment after primary digital nerve repair. J Hand Surg Br 1994;19:255-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Bulut T, Akgün U, Çıtlak A, Aslan C, Şener U, Şener M, et al. Prognostic factors in sensory recovery after digital nerve repair. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2016;50:157-61.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Efstathopoulos D, Gerostathopoulos N, Misitzis D, Bouchlis G, Anagnostou S, Daoutis NK, et al. Clinical assessment of primary digital nerve repair. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1995;264:45-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Mailänder P, Berger A, Schaller E, Ruhe K. Results of primary nerve repair in the upper extremity. Microsurgery 1989;10:147-50.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Poppen NK, McCarroll HR Jr., Doyle JR, Niebauer JJ. Recovery of sensibility after suture of digital nerves. J Hand Surg Am 1979;4:212-25.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Slutsky DJ. The management of digital nerve injuries. J Hand Surg Am 2014;39:1208-15.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Sullivan DJ. Results of digital neurorrhaphy in adults. J Hand Surg Br 1985;10:41-4.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Tadjalli HE, McIntyre FH, Dolynchuk KN, Murray KA. Digital nerve repair: Relationship between severity of injury and sensibility recovery. Ann Plast Surg 1995;35:36-40.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Rosén B. Recovery of sensory and motor function after nerve repair. A rationale for evaluation. J Hand Ther 1996;9:315-27.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Bell-Krotoski J. Light touch-deep pressure testing using the Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. In: Hunter J, Schneider L, Mackin E, Callahan A, editors. Rehabilitation of the Hand: Surgery and Therapy. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 1990. p. 585-93.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Gift AG. Visual analogue scales: Measurement of subjective phenomena. Nurs Res 1989;38:286-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Fakin RM, Calcagni M, Klein HJ, Giovanoli P. Long-term clinical outcome after epineural coaptation of digital nerves. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2016;41:148-54.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Collins ED, Novak CB, Mackinnon SE, Weisenborn SA. Long-term follow-up evaluation of cold sensitivity following nerve injury. J Hand Surg Am 1996;21:1078-85.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Engkvist O, Wahren LK, Wallin G, Torebjrk E, Nystrom B. Effects of regional intravenous guanethidine block in posttraumatic cold intolerance in hand amputees. J Hand Surg Br 1985;10:145-50.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Irwin MS, Gilbert SE, Terenghi G, Smith RW, Green CJ. Cold intolerance following peripheral nerve injury. Natural history and factors predicting severity of symptoms. J Hand Surg Br 1997;22:308-16.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Naidu S, Baskerville PA, Goss DE, Roberts VC. Raynaud's phenomenon and cold stress testing: A new approach. Eur J Vasc Surg 1994;8:567-73.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Backman C, Nyström A, Backman C, Bjerle P. Arterial spasticity and cold intolerance in relation to time after digital replantation. J Hand Surg Br 1993;18:551-5.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Freedlander E. The relationship between cold intolerance and cutaneous blood flow in digital replantation patients. J Hand Surg Br 1986;11:15-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Koman LA, Slone SA, Smith BP, Ruch DS, Poehling GG. Significance of cold intolerance in upper extremity disorders. J South Orthop Assoc 1998;7:192-7.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Bell-Krotoski J. Pocket filaments and specifications for the Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. J Hand Ther 1990;3:26-31.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Dellon AL, Mackinnon SE, Crosby PM. Reliability of two-point discrimination measurements. J Hand Surg Am 1987;12:693-6.  Back to cited text no. 25
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed496    
    Printed80    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded95    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal