Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between timing of nerve repair and the ability to perform a primary nerve repair versus a bridge repair requiring the use of allograft, autograft, or a conduit in lacerated upper extremity peripheral nerve injuries.
Methods: This is a retrospective case-control study of patients who underwent upper extremity nerve repair for lacerated peripheral nerves identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. Timing of injury and surgery, as well as other information such as demographic information, mechanism of injury, site of injury, and type of nerve repair, was recorded. The odds of a patient requiring bridge repair based on the duration of time between injury and surgery was evaluated using logistic regression.
Results: A total of 403 nerves in 335 patients (mean age 35.87 ± 15.33 years) were included. In all, 241 nerves were primarily repaired and 162 required bridge repair. Patients requiring bridge repair had a greater duration between injury and surgery compared with patients who underwent primary repair. Furthermore, the nerves requiring bridge repair were associated with a greater gap compared with the nerves repaired primarily. Based on logistic regression, each 1-day increase in duration between injury and surgery was associated with a 3% increase in the odds of requiring bridge repair.
Conclusions: There is no defined critical window to achieve a primary nerve repair following injury. This study demonstrated that nerve injuries requiring bridge repair were associated with a significantly greater delay to surgery.
Keywords: allograft; bridge repair; injury; nerve; primary repair.