4.6 Article

A 2-year follow-up survey of 523 cases with peripheral nerve injuries caused by the earthquake in Wenchuan, China

Journal

NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 252-259

Publisher

MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS & MEDIA PVT LTD
DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.152379

Keywords

nerve regeneration; earthquake; peripheral nerve injury; LSUHSC score; compartment syndrome; surgery therapy; physiotherapy; nerve decompression; neural regeneration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We performed a 2-year follow-up survey of 523 patients with peripheral nerve injuries caused by the earthquake in Wenchuan, Sichuan Province, China. Nerve injuries were classified into three types: type I injuries were nerve transection injuries, type II injuries were nerve compression injuries, and type III injuries displayed no direct neurological dysfunction due to trauma. In this study, 31 patients had type I injuries involving 41 nerves, 419 had type II injuries involving 823 nerves, and 73 had type III injuries involving 150 nerves. Twenty-two patients had open transection nerve injury. The restoration of peripheral nerve function after different treatments was evaluated. Surgical decompression favorably affected nerve recovery. Physiotherapy was effective for type I and type II nerve injuries, but not substantially for type III nerve injury. Pharmacotherapy had little effect on type II or type III nerve injuries. Targeted decompression surgery and physiotherapy contributed to the effective treatment of nerve transection and compression injuries. The Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center score for nerve injury severity declined with increasing duration of being trapped. In the first year after treatment, the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center score for grades 3 to 5 nerve injury increased by 28.2% to 81.8%. If scores were still poor (0 or 1) after a 1-year period of treatment, further treatment was not effective.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available