Editor's Choice| Volume 45, ISSUE 12, P1148-1156, December 2020

Download started.


A Multicenter Matched Cohort Study of Processed Nerve Allograft and Conduit in Digital Nerve Reconstruction

Published:September 30, 2020DOI:


      Biomaterials used to restore digital nerve continuity after injury associated with a defect may influence ultimate outcomes. An evaluation of matched cohorts undergoing digital nerve gap reconstruction was conducted to compare processed nerve allograft (PNA) and conduits. Based on scientific evidence and historical controls, we hypothesized that outcomes of PNA would be better than for conduit reconstruction.


      We identified matched cohorts based on patient characteristics, medical history, mechanism of injury, and time to repair for digital nerve injuries with gaps up to 25 mm. Data were stratified into 2 gap length groups: short gaps of 14 mm or less and long gaps of 15 to 25 mm. Meaningful sensory recovery was defined as a Medical Research Council scale of S3 or greater. Comparisons of meaningful recovery were made by repair method between and across the gap length groups.


      Eight institutions contributed matched data sets for 110 subjects with 162 injuries. Outcomes data were available in 113 PNA and 49 conduit repairs. Meaningful recovery was reported in 61% of the conduit group, compared with 88% in the PNA group. In the group with a 14-mm or less gap, conduit and PNA outcomes were 67% and 92% meaningful recovery, respectively. In the 15- to 25-mm gap length group, conduit and PNA outcomes were 45% and 85% meaningful recovery, respectively. There were no reported adverse events in either treatment group.


      Outcomes of digital nerve reconstruction in this study using PNA were consistent and significantly better than those of conduits across all groups. As gap lengths increased, the proportion of patients in the conduit group with meaningful recovery decreased. This study supports the use of PNA for nerve gap reconstruction in digital nerve reconstructions up to 25 mm.

      Type of study/level of evidence

      Therapeutic III.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Hand Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Sunderland S.
        A classification of peripheral nerve injuries producing loss of function.
        Brain. 1951; 74: 491-516
        • Terzis J.
        • Faibisoff B.
        • Williams B.
        The nerve gap: suture under tension vs. graft.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 1975; 56: 166-170
        • Clark W.L.
        • Trumble T.E.
        • Swiontkowski M.F.
        • Tencer A.F.
        Nerve tension and blood flow in a rat model of immediate and delayed repairs.
        J Hand Surg Am. 1992; 17: 677-687
        • Ehretsman R.L.
        • Novak C.B.
        • Mackinnon S.E.
        Subjective recovery of nerve graft donor site.
        Ann Plast Surg. 1999; 43: 606-612
        • Frykman G.
        • Gramyk K.
        Results of nerve grafting.
        in: Gelberman R. Operative Nerve Repair and Reconstruction. JB Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA1991: 553-568
        • Meek M.F.
        • Coert H.
        • Robinson P.H.
        Poor results after nerve grafting in the upper extremity: quo vadis?.
        Microsurgery. 2005; 25: 396-402
        • Higgins J.P.
        • Fisher S.
        • Serletti J.M.
        • Orlando G.S.
        Assessment of nerve graft donor sites used for reconstruction of traumatic digital nerve defects.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2002; 27: 286-292
        • Hagert E.
        • Persson J.K.
        Desensitizing the posterior interosseous nerve alters wrist proprioceptive reflexes.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2010; 35: 1059-1066
        • Ijpma F.F.
        • Nicolai J.P.
        • Meek M.F.
        Sural nerve donor-site morbidity: thirty-four years of follow-up.
        Ann Plast Surg. 2006; 57: 391-395
        • Ducic I.
        • Yoon J.
        • Buncke G.
        Chronic postoperative complications and donor site morbidity after sural nerve autograft harvest or biopsy.
        Microsurgery. 2020; 40: 710-716
        • Heath C.A.
        • Rutkowski G.E.
        The development of bioartificial nerve grafts for peripheral-nerve regeneration.
        Trends Biotechnol. 1998; 16: 163-168
        • Chiriac S.
        • Facca S.
        • Diaconu M.
        • et al.
        Experience of using the bioresorbable copolyester poly(DL-lactide-ε-caprolactone) nerve conduit guide Neurolac for nerve repair in peripheral nerve defects: report on a series of 28 lesions.
        J Hand Surg Eur. 2012; 37: 342-349
        • Lohmeyer J.A.
        • Sommer B.
        • Siemers F.
        • et al.
        Nerve injuries of the upper extremity-expected outcome and clinical examination.
        Plast Surg Nurs. 2009; 29: 88-93
        • Taras J.S.
        • Jacoby S.M.
        • Lincoski C.J.
        Reconstruction of digital nerves with collagen conduits.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2011; 36: 1441-1446
        • Weber R.A.
        • Breidenbach W.C.
        • Brown R.E.
        • et al.
        A randomized prospective study of polyglycolic acid conduits for digital nerve reconstruction in humans.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000; 106: 1036-1045
        • Safa B.
        • Buncke G.
        Autograft substitutes.
        Hand Clin. 2016; 32: 127-140
        • Tang P.
        • Whiteman D.R.
        • Voigt C.
        • Miller M.C.
        • Kim H.
        No difference in outcomes detected between decellular nerve allograft and cable autograft in rat sciatic nerve defects.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019; 101: e42
        • Hudson T.W.
        • Evans G.R.
        • Schmidt C.E.
        Engineering strategies for peripheral nerve repair.
        Orthop Clin North Am. 2000; 31: 485-498
        • Johnson P.J.
        • Newton P.
        • Hunter D.A.
        • Mackinnon S.E.
        Nerve endoneurial microstructure facilitates uniform distribution of regenerative fibers: a post hoc comparison of midgraft nerve fiber densities.
        J Reconstr Microsurg. 2011; 27: 83-90
        • Mauch J.T.
        • Bae A.
        • Shubinets V.
        • Lin I.C.
        A systematic review of sensory outcomes of digital nerve gap reconstruction with autograft, allograft, and conduit.
        Ann Plast Surg. 2019; 82: S247-S255
        • Means Jr., K.R.
        • Rinker B.D.
        • Higgins J.P.
        • Payne Jr., S.H.
        • Merrell G.A.
        • Wilgis E.F.
        A multicenter, prospective, randomized, pilot study of outcomes for digital nerve repair in the hand using hollow conduit compared with processed allograft nerve.
        Hand (N Y). 2016; 11: 144-151
        • Rbia N.
        • Bulstra L.F.
        • Saffari T.M.
        • Hovius S.E.R.
        • Shin A.Y.
        Collagen nerve conduits and processed nerve allografts for the reconstruction of digital nerve gaps: a single-institution case series and review of the literature.
        World Neurosurg. 2019; 127: e1176-e1184
        • Brooks D.
        • Weber R.V.
        • Chao J.D.
        • et al.
        Processed nerve allografts for peripheral nerve reconstruction: a multicenter study of utilization and outcomes in sensory, mixed, and motor nerve reconstructions.
        Microsurgery. 2012; 32: 1-14
        • Cho M.S.
        • Rinker B.D.
        • Weber R.V.
        • et al.
        Functional outcome following nerve repair in the upper extremity using processed nerve allograft.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2012; 37: 2340-2349
        • Mackinnon S.E.
        • Dellon A.L.
        Surgery of the Peripheral Nerve.
        Thieme Medical, New York, NY1988
        • Millesi H.
        Bridging defects: autologous nerve grafts.
        Acta Neurochir. 2007; 100: 37-38
        • Yi C.
        • Dahlin L.B.
        Impaired nerve regeneration and Schwann cell activation after repair with tension.
        Neuroreport. 2010; 21: 958-962
        • Schmidhammer R.
        • Zandieh S.
        • Hopf R.
        • et al.
        Alleviated tension at the repair site enhances functional regeneration: the effect of full range of motion mobilization on the regeneration of peripheral nerves—histologic, electrophysiologic, and functional results in a rat model.
        J Trauma. 2004; 56: 571-584
        • Zeeshan M.F.
        • Dembe A.E.
        • Seiber E.E.
        • Lu B.
        Incidence of adverse events in an integrated US healthcare system: a retrospective observational study of 82,784 surgical hospitalizations.
        Patient Saf Surg. 2014; 8: 23
        • Stang F.
        • Keilhoff G.
        • Fansa H.
        Biocompatibility of different nerve tubes.
        Materials (Basel). 2009; 2: 1480-1507
        • Whitlock E.L.
        • Tuffaha S.H.
        • Luciano J.P.
        • et al.
        Processed allografts and type I collagen conduits for repair of peripheral nerve gaps.
        Muscle Nerve. 2009; 39: 787-799
        • Stang F.
        • Fansa H.
        • Wolf G.
        • Keilhoff G.
        Collagen nerve conduits—assessment of biocompatibility and axonal regeneration.
        Biomed Mater Eng. 2005; 15: 3-12
        • Ducic I.
        • Fu R.
        • Iorio M.L.
        Innovative treatment of peripheral nerve injuries: combined reconstructive concepts.
        Ann Plast Surg. 2012; 68: 180-187
        • Evans P.J.
        • Midha R.
        • Mackinnon S.E.
        The peripheral nerve allograft: a comprehensive review of regeneration and neuroimmunology.
        Prog Neurobiol. 1994; 43: 187-233
        • Hudson T.W.
        • Zawko S.
        • Deister C.
        • et al.
        Optimized acellular nerve graft is immunologically tolerated and supports regeneration.
        Tissue Eng. 2004; 10: 1641-1651
        • Safa B.
        • Jain S.
        • Desai M.J.
        • et al.
        Peripheral nerve repair throughout the body with processed nerve allografts: results from a large multicenter study.
        Microsurgery. 2020; 40: 527-537
        • Karabekmez F.E.
        • Duymaz A.
        • Moran S.L.
        Early clinical outcomes with the use of decellularized nerve allograft for repair of sensory defects within the hand.
        Hand (N Y). 2009; 4: 245-249
        • Taras J.S.
        • Amin N.
        • Patel N.
        • et al.
        Allograft reconstruction for digital nerve loss.
        J Hand Surg Am. 2013; 38: 1965-1971
        • Rinker B.D.
        • Zoldos J.
        • Weber R.V.
        • et al.
        Use of processed nerve allografts to repair nerve injuries greater than 25 mm in the hand.
        Ann Plast Surg. 2017; 78: S292-S295
        • Kallio P.K.
        The results of secondary repair of 254 digital nerves.
        J Hand Surg Br. 1993; 18: 327-330
        • Stang F.
        • Stollwerck P.
        • Prommersberger K.J.
        • et al.
        Posterior interosseous nerve vs. medial cutaneous nerve of the forearm: differences in digital nerve reconstruction.
        Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013; 133: 875-880
        • Wang Y.
        • Sunitha M.
        • Chung K.C.
        How to measure outcomes of peripheral nerve surgery.
        Hand Clin. 2013; 29: 349-361