Surgical Algorithm for Neuroma Management: A Changing Treatment Paradigm

Successful treatment of the painful neuroma is a particular challenge to the nerve surgeon. Historically, symptomatic neuromas have primarily been treated with excision and implantation techniques, which are inherently passive and do not address the terminal end of the nerve. Over the past decade, the surgical management of neuromas has undergone a paradigm shift synchronous with the development of contemporary techniques aiming to satisfy the nerve end. In this article, we describe the important features of surgical treatment, including the approach to diagnosis with consideration of neuroma type and the decision of partial versus complete neuroma excision. A comprehensive list of the available surgical techniques for management following neuroma excision is presented, the choice of which is often predicated upon the availability of the terminal nerve end for reconstruction. Techniques for neuroma reconstruction in the presence of an intact terminal nerve end include hollow tube reconstruction and auto- or allograft nerve reconstruction. Techniques for neuroma management in the absence of an intact or identifiable terminal nerve end include submuscular or interosseous implantation, centro-central neurorrhaphy, relocation nerve grafting, nerve cap placement, use of regenerative peripheral nerve interface, “end-to-side” neurorrhaphy, and targeted muscle reinnervation. These techniques can be further categorized into passive/ablative and active/reconstructive modalities. The nerve surgeon must be aware of available treatment options and should carefully choose the most appropriate intervention for each patient. Comparative studies are lacking and will be necessary in the future to determine the relative effectiveness of each technique

Anatomical Considerations to Optimize Sensory Recovery in Breast Neurotization with Allograft

Background:. Breast numbness is a recognized problem following mastectomy and subsequent reconstruction. Contemporary literature acknowledges the positive role of breast neurotization, but it is characterized by a variety of technical approaches and substantial heterogeneity with respect to the degree of recovered sensibility that remains suboptimal in comparison with other sensory nerve reconstructions. This study’s purpose was to provide an anatomical basis for observed inconsistencies and therein provide a principle that can be used to develop a technical approach that will optimize sensory recovery. Methods:. Anatomical dissections on 6 fresh cadavers, that is, 12 hemi-abdominal flaps and 12 hemi-chest dissections, were performed. The technical aspects of harvesting the abdominal flap with a nerve target, that is, inclusion of a sensory nerve branch only, recipient nerves in the chest, and the applications of allograft for acquired nerve gap reconstruction were investigated. Results:. Abdominal flaps that include sensory-only intercostal nerve 10–12 segments and identification of recipient chest wall intercostal nerves 2–4 could be consistently performed. The dissection and extraction of the donor sensory nerve target allowed preservation of the motor rectus innervation. The acquired nerve gap was easily bridged by an interposing allograft, allowing free arch of rotation for flap inset, suitable for either single or dual neurotization. Conclusions:. We provide a likely anatomical explanation for suboptimal sensory recovery after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast neurotization, as mixed intercostal autograft is prohibitive to maximal sensory recovery. Breast neurotization with allograft that bridges sensory donor intercostal nerves to sensory recipient intercostal nerves should anatomically optimize restoration of breast sensibility