Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 23, 2026
Maximum Isometric Tetanic Force Measurement of the Tibialis Anterior Muscle in the Rat
Published on: June 26, 2021
Comparative Effectiveness Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Peripheral Nerve Repair Using Direct Repair and
Amber Leis1,2, Brandon S Smetana3, Adam B Strohl4
1From UCI Health, Orange, Calif.
Background:
This clinical literature systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess differences in outcomes between nerves repaired with direct repair (DR) and connector-assisted repair (CAR).
Methods:
A systematic literature review for DR and CAR was performed. Studies from 1980 through August 2023 were included if DR or CAR repairs were performed in upper extremities with nerve gaps less than 5 mm and reported sensory Medical Research Council Classification (MRCC) outcomes or equivalent. Comparative analyses were planned for meaningful recovery (MR) rate (at both S3 and S3+ or better), postsurgical neuroma, cold intolerance, altered sensation, pain, and revision rate.
Results:
There were significant differences in MR rates for CAR and DR. At the MRCC S3 threshold, 96.1% of CAR and 81.3% of DR achieved MR (P < 0.0001). At the MRCC S3+ threshold, 87.1% of CAR and 54.2% of DR achieved this higher threshold of MR (P < 0.0001). There were no differences in neuroma rate or pain scores in our dataset. Altered sensation (dysesthesia, paresthesia, hyperesthesia, or hypersensitivity) was not discussed in any CAR studies, so no analysis could be performed. The revision rate for both procedures was 0%. The proportion of patients with cold intolerance was 46.2% in the DR studies, which was significantly higher than the 10.7% of patients in the CAR group.
Conclusions:
Significantly more patients achieved sensory MR and fewer had cold intolerance when the CAR technique, instead of the DR technique, was performed to repair peripheral nerve injuries.
