Purpose

To compare the incidence and nature of ‘neurophysiological events’ identified, post hoc, by a consultant neurophysiologist with those identified intra-operatively by clinical physiologists, before and after intervention(s).

Introduction: End-to-side nerve repair is an experimental technique for repairing peripheral nerves when severe injury renders the proximal nerve stump not available for end-to-end repair or for conventional nerve grafting techniques. This study uses a large animal model to compare two variations of end-to-side neurorrhaphy techniques with conventional clinically established methods of nerve repair to assess the feasibility of end-to-side suture as a technique for possible future clinical use.

Methods: 12 age and weight matched sheep underwent end-to-side neurorrhaphy of the distal stump of the transected median nerve to the lateral side of the adjacent intact ulnar nerve through an epineurial window. 12 sheep underwent the same procedure as above but with the proximal stump of the transected median nerve similarly attached 2cm proximal to the first neurorrhaphy site to create a double end-to-side model. 18 sheep underwent conventional methods of nerve repair. All the experiments were randomized and the author performed all the surgery. The nerve repairs were assessed electrophysiologically and histologically and the muscles supplied by the repaired nerves were assessed physiologically at one-year post repair. Normal median nerves and donor ulnar nerves were also tested in the same ways.

Results: There were no significant differences in the outcomes of nerve repair between different conventional techniques. Half the end-to-side repairs failed but the double end-to-side repair consistently supported nerve regeneration. Both end-to-side methods were inferior to conventional techniques of nerve repair in all measures of outcome except twitch and tetanic muscle tensions. The function of the donor ulnar nerves in terms of conduction velocity was compromised in the double end-to-side repair but not the end-to-side repair.

Discussion and Conclusions: End–to-side nerve repair did support nerve regeneration but it was all or nothing. It is likely that the double end-to-side neurorrhaphies regenerated more consistently than the single end-to-side neurorrhaphies due the conduit effect of the donor ulnar nerve bridge supporting axon growth. Donor ulnar nerve damage in the double end-to-side group suggests regeneration may have occurred from terminal sprouts rather than collateral sprouts.

Although end-to-side neurorrhaphy did support nerve regeneration with sometimes good return of muscle function, the use of this technique as a clinical tool at this time cannot be recommended.