Traumatic Peroneal Nerve Injuries: A Systematic Review

• Published in: Foot & ankle orthopaedics Vol. 7; no. 1; p. 2473011421S00488
• Main Authors: Vopat, Bryan G., Mackay, Matthew, Ayres, Jack M., Harmon, Ian, Tarakemeh, Armin, Brubacher, Jacob
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01-01-2022; Sage Publications Ltd; SAGE Publishing
• Subjects: Injuries; Patient satisfaction; Systematic review; Trauma; Fibula Fractures; Tendon Transfer; Trauma
• ISSN: 2473-0114; 2473-0114
• DOI: 10.1177/2473011421S00488

Category:
Trauma
Introduction/Purpose:
The common peroneal nerve (CPN) is the most commonly injured peripheral nerve of the lower extremity in trauma patients. Traumatic CPN injuries have historically been associated with relatively poor outcomes and patient satisfaction, though recent outcome data appear promising. Given the variety of underlying injury modalities, treatment options, and prognostic variables, this study sought to evaluate and summarize current literature on traumatic CPN injuries and provide recommendations for treatment and future research.
Methods:
A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases per PRISMA guidelines. Search terms consisted of variations of 'peroneal nerve' and 'fibular nerve' combined with 'injury,' or 'laceration,' or 'entrapment,' or 'repair,' or 'neurolysis.' Information regarding treatment modality, outcomes and patient demographics were recorded and analyzed.
Results:
2,301 articles were identified in the initial search, 42 met eligibility criteria (Figure 1). Factors associated with better clinical outcomes included shorter pre-operative interval, shorter graft length when an interposed graft was used, nerve continuity and younger patient age. Sex or gender did not affect outcomes in any studies in this review. Motor grades of M3 or greater on the MRC scale are typically considered successful outcomes. In studies we analyzed, this was achieved in 81.2% of patients who underwent neurolysis, 78.8% of patients who underwent end to end suture, 49.8% of patients who underwent nerve grafting, 62.9% of patients who underwent nerve transfer, 86.0% of patients who underwent posterior tibial tendon transfer (PTTT) and 73.9% of patients who underwent surgery with concurrent PTTT.
Conclusion:
Included studies were heterogenous, complicating our ability to further analyze the data. It is not possible to uniformly advocate for the best treatment option given diverse injury modalities, presentations and prognostic factors. Many studies do not report outcomes with respect to specific injury modality. Future studies should clearly report outcomes based on injury modality and surgical treatment option. This would allow for greater analysis on the most appropriate treatment option for a given mechanism of injury. Newer surgical techniques, such as addition of growth factors to nerve repairs and concurrent tendon transfer are promising and should be further explored.