The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Median and Ulnar Nerve Injuries: A Meta-Analysis of Predictors of Motor and Sensory Recovery after Modern Microsurgical Nerve Repair
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to quantify variables that influence outcome after median and ulnar nerve transection injuries. The authors present a meta-analysis based on individual patient data on motor and sensory recovery after microsurgical nerve repair. METHODS: From 130 studies found after literature review, 23 articles were ultimately included, giving individual data for 623 median or ulnar nerve injuries. The variables age, sex, nerve, site of injury, type of repair, use of grafts, delay between injury and repair, follow-up period, and outcome were extracted. Satisfactory motor recovery was defined as British Medical Research Council motor scale grade 4 and 5, and satisfactory sensory recovery was defined as British Medical Research Council grade 3+ and 4. For motor and sensory recovery, complete data were available for 281 and 380 nerve injuries, respectively. RESULTS: Motor and sensory recovery were significantly associated (Spearman r = 0.62, p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age (< 16 years versus > 40 years: odds ratio, 4.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 11.2), site (proximal versus distal: odds ratio, 0.46; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.20 to 1.10), and delay (per month: odds ratio, 0.94; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 0.98) were significant predictors of successful motor recovery. In ulnar nerve injuries, the chance of motor recovery was 71 percent lower than in median nerve injuries (odds ratio, 0.29; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.15 to 0.55). For sensory recovery, age (odds ratio, 27.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 9.4 to 77.6) and delay (per month: odds ratio, 0.92; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.98) were found to be significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, age, site, injured nerve, and delay significantly influenced prognosis after microsurgical repair of median and ulnar nerve injuries.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Latremoliere, A., Cheng, L., DeLisle, M., Wu, C., Chew, S., Hutchinson, E. B., Sheridan, A., Alexandre, C., Latremoliere, F., Sheu, S.-H., et al. (2018) · Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.07.029 · Cited by 183
Targeted Muscle Reinnervation for the Upper and Lower Extremity
Kuiken, T. A., Barlow, A. K., Hargrove, L. J., & Dumanian, G. A. (2017) · Techniques in Orthopaedics · doi:10.1097/bto.0000000000000194 · Cited by 143
Optogenetically enhanced axon regeneration: motor versus sensory neuron‐specific stimulation
Ward, P. J., Clanton, S. L., & English, A. W. (2018) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.13836 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruijs, A. C. J., Jaquet, J.-B., Kalmijn, S., Giele, H., & Hovius, S. E. R.
- Venue
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 484-494
- ISSN
- 0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087048035
- Cited by
- 452
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Median and Ulnar Nerve Injuries: A Meta-Analysis of Predictors of Motor and Sensory Recovery after Modern Microsurgical Nerve Repair. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.prs.0000172896.86594.07
- The paper
- Ruijs, A. C. J., Jaquet, J.-B., Kalmijn, S., Giele, H., & Hovius, S. E. R. (2005). Median and Ulnar Nerve Injuries: A Meta-Analysis of Predictors of Motor and Sensory Recovery after Modern Microsurgical Nerve Repair. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000172896.86594.07
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
