A new model instrument for outcome after nerve repair

Hand Clinics

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 463-470

  Rosén, Birgitta ^a   Lundborg, Göran ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CASE REPORT; CLINICAL FEATURE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EVALUATION; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HAND FUNCTION; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; JOINT MOBILITY; MALE; NERVE INJURY; NERVE REGENERATION; NERVE SURGERY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PSYCHOMETRY; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION PROCESS; WELLBEING;

EID: 0042472821     PISSN: 07490712     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0749-0712(03)00003-9     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Ewing-Fess E. The need for reliability and validity in hand assessment instruments. J Hand Surg 1986; 11A:621-3.
2. Szabo RM. Outcome assessment in hand surgery: when are they meaningful? J Hand Surg 2001; 26A:993-1002.
3. Omer G, Bell-Krotoski J. The evaluation of clinical results following peripheral nerve suture. In: Omer G, Spinner M, Van Beek A, editors. Management of peripheral nerve problems. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1998. p. 340-9.
4. Lundborg G. Nerve injury and repair. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1988.
5. Hall S. Nerve repair: a neurobiologist's view. J Hand Surg 2001;26B:129-36.
6. McAllister R, Calder J. Paradoxical clinical consequences of peripheral nerve injury: a review of anatomical, neurophysiological and psychological mechanisms. Br J Plast Surg 1995;48:384-95.
7. Lundborg G. Peripheral nerve injuries: pathophysiology and strategies for treatment. J Hand Ther 1993;6:179-88.
8. Allan CH. Functional results of primary nerve repair. Hand Clin 2000;16:67-72.
9. Jaquet J, Kalmijn S, Kuypers P, Hofman A, Passchier J, Hovius S. Early psychological stress after forearm nerve injuries: a predictor for long-term functional outcome and return to work. Ann Plast Surg 2002;49:82-90.
10. Rosén B. The sensational hand. Clinical assessment after nerve repair [thesis]. Sweden: Lund University; 2000.
11. Lundborg G. A 25-year perspective of peripheral nerve surgery: evolving neuroscientific concepts and clinical significance. J Hand Surg 2000;25A: 391-414.
12. Florence SL, Jain N, Pospichal MW, Beck PD, Sly DL, Kaas JH. Central reorganization of sensory pathways following peripheral nerve regeneration in fetal monkeys. Nature 1996;381:69-71.
13. Duteille F, Petry D, Poure L, Dautel G, Merle M. A comparative clinical and electromyographic study of median and ulnar nerve injuries at the wrist in children and adults. Br J Hand Surg 2001;26: 58-60.
14. Merzenich MM, Jenkins WM. Reorganization of cortical representations of the hand following alterations of skin inputs induced by nerve injury, skin island transfers, and experience. J Hand Ther 1993;6:89-104.
15. Lundborg G. Brain plasticity and hand surgery: an overview. J Hand Surg 2000;25B:242-52.
16. Dellon A. Somatosensory testing and rehabilitation. Bethesda, MD: The American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc; 1997.
17. Wynn Parry CB. Rehabilitation of the hand. London: Butterworths; 1981.
18. Borsook D, Becerra L, Fishman S, et al. Acute plasticity in the human somatosensory cortex following amputation. Neuroreport 1998;9:1013-7.
19. Rosén B, Lundborg G. Early use of artificial sensibility to improve sensory recovery following repair of the median and ulnar nerve. A case report. Scand J Plast Rec Surg Hand Surg 37:54-7.
20. Lundborg G, Rosen B. Sensory relearning after nerve repair. Lancet 2001;358:809-10.
21. Bavelier D, Neville HJ. Cross-modal plasticity: where and how? Nat Rev Neurosci 2002;3: 443-52.
22. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
23. Rosén B. Recovery of sensory and motor function after nerve repair: a rationale for evaluation. J Hand Ther 1996;9:315-27.
24. Ewing-Fess E. Documentation: essential elements of an upper extremity assessment battery. In: Mackin E, Callahan A, Skirven T, Schneider L, Osterman AH, editors. Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity. 5th edition. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002. p. 263-84.
25. Fuhrer M. Overview of outcome analysis in rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer M, editors. Rehabilitation outcomes. Analysis and measurement. Baltimore: Paul, H., Brookes Publishing Co.; 1987. p. 1-15.
26. Lundborg G, Rosén B. Rationale for quantitative sensory tests in hand surgery. In: Boivie J, Hansson P, Lindblom U, editors. Touch, temperature, and pain in health and disease, mechanisms and assessments. Seattle: IASP Press; 1994. p. 151-62.
27. Bell-Krotoski J. Sensibility testing with the Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. In: Mackin E, Callahan A, Skirven T, Schneider L, Osterman AH, editors. Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity. 5th edition. Mosby: St. Louis; 2002. p. 194-213.
28. Callahan AD. Sensibility assessment for nerve lesions-in-continuity and nerve lacerations. In: Mackin E, Callahan A, Skirven T, Schneider L, Osterman AH, editors. Rehabilitation of the hand and upper extremity. 5th edition. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002. p. 214-39.
29. Novak CB. Evaluation of hand sensibility: a review. J Hand Ther 2001;14:266-72.
30. Dellon A. A numerical grading scale for peripheral nerve function. J Hand Ther 1993;6: 152-60.
31. Millesi H. Zur bewertung der ergebnisse nach nervewiederherstellung. Nervenwiederherstellung nach traumatischen läsionen. Stuttgart: Hippokrates Verlag; 1985. p. 50-65.
32. Medical Research Council. Nerve Injuries Committee. Results of nerve suture. In: Seddon HJ, editor. Peripheral nerve injuries. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office; 1954.
33. Moberg E. The unsolved problem-how to test the functional value of hand sensibility. J Hand Ther 1991;4:105-10.
34. MacKinnon SE, Dellon AL. Surgery of the peripheral nerve. New York: Thieme; 1988.
35. Stone JH. Sensibility. In: Clinical assessment recommendations. 2nd edition. American Society of Hand Therapists; 1992. p. 71-84.
36. Bell-Krotoski JA, Buford WL. The force/time relationship of clinically used sensory testing instrument. J Hand Ther 1997;10:297-309.
37. Ewing-Fess E. Human performance: an appropriate measure of instrument reliability. J Hand Ther 1997; 10:46-7.
38. Johnson K, Van Bowen R, Hsiao S. The perception of two points is not the spatial resolution threshold. In: Boivie J, Hansson P, Lindblom U, editors. Touch, temperature and pain in health and disease: mechanisms and assessments. Seattle: IASP Press; 1994. p. 389-404.
39. Jerosch-Herold C. Should sensory function after median nerve injury and repair be quantified using two-point discrimination as the critical measure? Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2000; 34:339-43.
40. Rosén B, Dahlin L, Lundborg G. Assessment of functional outcome after nerve repair in a longitudinal cohort. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2000;34:71-8.
41. Moberg E. Objective methods for determining the functional value of sensibility in the hand. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1958;40B:454-76.
42. Moberg E. Criticism and study of methods for examining sensibility in the hand. Neurology 1962;12:8-19.
43. Stevens J, Green B. History of research on touch. In: Kruger L, editor. Pain and touch. London: Academic Press; 1996. p. 1-19.
44. Wynn Parry CB. Peripheral nerve injuries: sensation. J Bone Joint Surg 1986;68B:15-9.
45. Gibson JJ. Observations on active touch. Psychol Rev 1962;69:477-91.
46. International Federation of Societies for Surgery of the Hand. Terminology. Hardcourt Health Sciences, ISSN 0266-7681, 2001.
47. Rosén B, Lundborg G. A new tactile gnosis instrument in sensibility testing. J Hand Ther 1998;11:251-7.
48. Rosén B, Jerosch-Herold C. Comparing the responsiveness over time of two tactile gnosis tests: two-point discrimination and the STI-test. Br J Hand Ther 2000;5:114-9.
49. Rosén B. Inter-rater reliability. In: Programs and abstracts of the Xth Congress of EFSHT. Amsterdam; 2002.
50. Rosén B, Lundborg G. A model instrument for the documentation of outcome after nerve repair. J Hand Surg 2000;25A:535-44.
51. Rosén B, Lundborg G. The long-term recovery curve in adults after median or ulnar nerve repair: a reference interval. J Hand Surg 2001;26B: 196-200.