Donor Site Morbidity after Sural Nerve Harvesting for Peripheral Nerve Reconstruction.
- Author:
Jung Woo CHANG
1
;
Seung Suk CHOI
;
Jang Hyun LEE
;
Hee Chang AHN
;
Nak Heon KANG
Author Information
1. Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea. msschoi@hanyang.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Sural nerve graft;
Donor site morbidity
- MeSH:
Cicatrix;
Cicatrix, Hypertrophic;
Follow-Up Studies;
Foot;
Heel;
Humans;
Neuroma;
Organic Chemicals;
Peripheral Nerves;
Skin;
Sural Nerve;
Tissue Donors;
Transplants
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons
2011;38(4):421-426
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Although the sural nerve is the most commonly used donor for autologous nerve graft, its morbidity after harvesting is sparsely investigated. The sural nerve being a sensory nerve, complications such as sensory changes in its area and neuroma can be expected. This study was designed to evaluate the donor site morbidity after sural nerve harvesting. METHODS: Among the 13 cases, who underwent sural nerve harvesting between January 2004 and August 2009, 11 patients with proper follow up were included in the study. The collected data included harvested graft length, actual length of the grafted nerve, anesthetic and paresthetic area, presence of Tinel sign and symptomatic neuroma, and scar quality. RESULTS: In 7 patients, no anesthetic area could be detected. Of the patients with a follow up period of more than 2 years, all the patients showed no anesthetic area except two cases who had a very small area of sensory deficit (225 mm2) on the lateral heel area, and large deficit (4,500 mm2) on the lateral foot aspect. The patients with a short follow up period (1~2 m) demonstrated a large anesthetic skin area (6.760 mm2, 12,500 mm2). Only one patient had a Tinel sign. This patient also showed a subcutaneous neuroma, which was visible, but did not complain of discomfort during daily activities. One patient had a hypertrophic scar in the retromalleolar area, whereas the two other scars on the calf were invisible. CONCLUSION: After a period of 2 years the size of anesthetic skin in the lateral retromalleolar area is nearly zero. It is hypothesized that the size of sensory skin deficit may be large immediately after the operation. This area decreases over time so that after 2 years the patient does not feel any discomfort from nerve harvesting.
