Comparing Primary With Secondary Repair of Based on Electrodiagnostic Assessment and Clinical Examination

Study of Surgical Methods for Repair of Clean Transections in Peripheral Nerve Injuries

The purpose of this study is to determine which surgical approach is better for clean transection injury in peripheral nerves in outcomes.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Detailed Description

Treatment of injuries to major nerve trunks in the hand and upper extremity remains a major and challenging reconstructive problem. Our goal was to compare primary versus secondary repair of median and\or ulnar nerve by electrodiagnostic assessment and clinical examination.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

46

Phase

  • Phase 2

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • ADULT
  • OLDER_ADULT
  • CHILD

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • patients with confirmed clean transection injury between shoulder and wrist

Exclusion Criteria:

  • crush injuries

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
  • Allocation: NON_RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: SINGLE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
OTHER: secondary repair
secondary closure beyond the first week.the nerve was conducted to repair as end to end (epi-epineurium, epi-epineurium) anastomosis. This was performed following the repair of present tendons and muscle injuries.
after one week,the nerve was conducted to repair as end to end (epi-epineurium, epi-epineurium) anastomosis. This was performed following the repair of present tendons and muscle injuries.
Other Names:
  • NCV,EMG
OTHER: primary repair
during first days,the nerve was conducted to repair as end to end (epi-epineurium, epi-epineurium) anastomosis. This was performed following the repair of present tendons and muscle injuries.
during the first days,the nerve was conducted to repair as end to end (epi-epineurium, epi-epineurium) anastomosis. This was performed following the repair of present tendons and muscle injuries.
Other Names:
  • NCV,EMG

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
motor function
Time Frame: at 18 months post-operatively
identification of motor level were done based on British Medical Research Council guided.The abductor pollicis brevis (APB) was used for the median nerve and the abductor digiti minimi (ADM) for the ulnar nerve. as follows: 0, M0, M1 and M2; 1, M3; 2, M4.
at 18 months post-operatively

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
sensory recovery
Time Frame: at 18 months post-operatively
identification of motor and sensory level were done based on British Medical Research Council guided.The abductor pollicis brevis (APB) was used for the median nerve and the abductor digiti minimi (ADM) for the ulnar nerve. The results scored as follows: 0, S0, S1 and S2; 1, S3; 2, S4 and S5.
at 18 months post-operatively
nerve conduction velocity
Time Frame: at 18 months post-operatively
For electrodiagnostic assessment, nerve conduction velocity (NCV) was tested as motor and sensory. The results categorized according to the Yale sensory scale and the severity of sensation and function of the nerves was scored as follows: 0, no sensation; 1, decreased or abnormal sensation; 2, normal sensation.
at 18 months post-operatively
electromyography
Time Frame: at 18 months post-operatively
For an EMG, a needle electrode was inserted through the skin into the muscle which injured nerve supplied. The presence, size and shape of the waveform registered and the ability of the muscle to respond when the nerves were stimulated. Also these results scored as follows: 0, no activity; 1, few or single movement; 2, partial activity; 3, full activity.
at 18 months post-operatively

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

March 1, 2008

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

December 1, 2009

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

December 1, 2009

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 3, 2010

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 3, 2010

First Posted (ESTIMATE)

May 5, 2010

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ESTIMATE)

May 20, 2010

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 19, 2010

Last Verified

March 1, 2008

More Information

Terms related to this study

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Peripheral Nerve Injury

Clinical Trials on secondary repair

3
Subscribe