Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · J Brachial Plex Peripher Nerve Inj 2023; 18(01): e10-e20
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764352
Review Article

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Provocative Testing in Peripheral Nerve Injury and Recovery

Albin John 
1   Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas
,
Stephen Rossettie
1   Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas
,
John Rafael
1   Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas
,
Cameron T. Cox
1   Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas
,
Ivica Ducic
2   Washington Nerve Institute, McLean, Virginia
,
Brendan J. Mackay
1   Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Peripheral nerve function is often difficult to assess given the highly variable presentation and subjective patient experience of nerve injury. If nerve assessment is incomplete or inaccurate, inappropriate diagnosis and subsequent treatment may result in permanent dysfunction.

Objective As our understanding of nerve repair and generation evolves, so have tools for evaluating peripheral nerve function, recovery, and nerve-related impact on the quality of life. Provocative testing is often used in the clinic to identify peripheral nerve dysfunction. Patient-reported outcome forms provide insights regarding the effect of nerve dysfunction on daily activities and quality of life.

Methods We performed a review of the literature using a comprehensive combination of keywords and search algorithms to determine the clinical utility of different provocative tests and patient-reported outcomes measures in a variety of contexts, both pre- and postoperatively.

Results This review may serve as a valuable resource for surgeons determining the appropriate provocative testing tools and patient-reported outcomes forms to monitor nerve function both pre- and postoperatively.

Conclusion As treatments for peripheral nerve injury and dysfunction continue to improve, identifying the most appropriate measures of success may ultimately lead to improved patient outcomes.

Keywords

provocative testing - functional assessment - nerve recovery - peripheral nerve injury - patient-reported outcomes

Author Contributions

A.J. was responsible for conceptualization, investigation, project administration, and writing. S.R. was responsible for investigation and writing. J.R. was responsible for investigation and writing. C.T.C. was responsible for conceptualization, project administration, and writing. I.D. was responsible for supervision and validation. B.M. was responsible for conceptualization and validation.




Publication History

Received: 07 August 2022

Accepted: 03 February 2023

Article published online:
21 April 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Stassart RM, Fledrich R, Velanac V. et al. A role for Schwann cell-derived neuregulin-1 in remyelination. Nat Neurosci 2013; 16 (01) 48-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Chung KC, Yoneda H. Surgical management of severe upper extremity injury. UpToDate 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vargas ME, Barres BA. Why is Wallerian degeneration in the CNS so slow?. Annu Rev Neurosci 2007; 30: 153-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Echeverry S, Wu Y, Zhang J. Selectively reducing cytokine/chemokine expressing macrophages in injured nerves impairs the development of neuropathic pain. Exp Neurol 2013; 240: 205-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lundborg G, Myers R, Powell H. Nerve compression injury and increased endoneurial fluid pressure: a “miniature compartment syndrome”. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1983; 46 (12) 1119-1124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bogle A, Wiesler E. Neuritis of the cutaneous nerves of the hand. J Hand Surg Am 2014; 39 (06) 1204-1206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Menorca RMG, Fussell TS, Elfar JC. Nerve physiology: mechanisms of injury and recovery. Hand Clin 2013; 29 (03) 317-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Baltodano PA, Tong AJ, Chhabra A, Rosson GD. The role of magnetic resonance neurography in the postoperative management of peripheral nerve injuries. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2014; 24 (01) 235-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Martín Noguerol T, Barousse R, Gómez Cabrera M, Socolovsky M, Bencardino JT, Luna A. Functional MR neurography in evaluation of peripheral nerve trauma and postsurgical assessment. Radiographics 2019; 39 (02) 427-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Alvites R, Rita Caseiro A, Santos Pedrosa S. et al. Peripheral nerve injury and axonotmesis: state of the art and recent advances. Cogent Med 2018; 5 (01) 1466404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Papatheodorou LK, Williams BG, Sotereanos DG. Preliminary results of recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome treated with neurolysis and porcine extracellular matrix nerve wrap. J Hand Surg Am 2015; 40 (05) 987-992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gaspar MP, Abdelfattah HM, Welch IW, Vosbikian MM, Kane PM, Rekant MS. Recurrent cubital tunnel syndrome treated with revision neurolysis and amniotic membrane nerve wrapping. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25 (12) 2057-2065
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tos P, Crosio A, Pugliese P, Adani R, Toia F, Artiaco S. Painful scar neuropathy: principles of diagnosis and treatment. Plast Aesthet Res 2015; 2: 156-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ingram LA, Butler AA, Walsh LD, Brodie MA, Lord SR, Gandevia SC. The upper limb physiological profile assessment: description, reliability, normative values and criterion validity. PLoS One 2019; 14 (06) e0218553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wang Y, Sunitha M, Chung KC. How to measure outcomes of peripheral nerve surgery. Hand Clin 2013; 29 (03) 349-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 2021; 88: 105906
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ho T, Braza ME. Hoffmann Tinel Sign. StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2020, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Davis EN, Chung KC. The Tinel sign: a historical perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (02) 494-499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ho T, Braza ME. Hoffmann Tinel Sign. 2020 [available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555934/]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 MacDermid JC, Doherty T. Clinical and electrodiagnostic testing of carpal tunnel syndrome: a narrative review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2004; 34 (10) 565-588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Phalen GS. Spontaneous compression of the median nerve at the wrist. J Am Med Assoc 1951; 145 (15) 1128-1133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kuschner SH, Ebramzadeh E, Johnson D, Brien WW, Sherman R. Tinel's sign and Phalen's test in carpal tunnel syndrome. Orthopedics 1992; 15 (11) 1297-1302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 MacDermid JC, Wessel J. Clinical diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review. J Hand Ther 2004; 17 (02) 309-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Durkan JA. A new diagnostic test for carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991; 73 (04) 535-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Szabo RM, Slater Jr RR, Farver TB, Stanton DB, Sharman WK. The value of diagnostic testing in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am 1999; 24 (04) 704-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Cheng CJ, Mackinnon-Patterson B, Beck JL, Mackinnon SE. Scratch collapse test for evaluation of carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg Am 2008; 33 (09) 1518-1524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Montgomery K, Wolff G, Boyd KU. Evaluation of the scratch collapse test for carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome—a prospective, blinded study. J Hand Surg Am 2020; 45 (06) 512-517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Huynh MNQ, Karir A, Bennett A. Scratch collapse test for carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (09) e1933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kahn LC, Yee A, Mackinnon SE. Important details in performing and interpreting the scratch collapse test. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (02) 399-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Henry SL, Ring DC. Discussion: important details in performing and interpreting the scratch collapse test. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (02) 408-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Gillenwater J, Cheng J, Mackinnon SE. Evaluation of the scratch collapse test in peroneal nerve compression. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (04) 933-939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 MacDermid JC. Measurement of health outcomes following tendon and nerve repair. J Hand Ther 2005; 18 (02) 297-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Fonseca MCR, Elui VMC, Lalone E. et al. Functional, motor, and sensory assessment instruments upon nerve repair in adult hands: systematic review of psychometric properties. Syst Rev 2018; 7 (01) 175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30 (06) 473-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 LoMartire R, Äng BO, Gerdle B, Vixner L. Psychometric properties of Short Form-36 Health Survey, EuroQol 5-dimensions, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in patients with chronic pain. Pain 2020; 161 (01) 83-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bunevicius A. Reliability and validity of the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire in patients with brain tumors: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2017; 15 (01) 92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 White MK, McCausland KL, Sanchorawala V, Guthrie SD, Bayliss MS. Psychometric validation of the SF-36 Health Survey in light chain amyloidosis: results from community-based and clinic-based samples. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 2017; 8: 157-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ware Jr JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine 2000; 25 (24) 3130-3139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley JM. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can 1995; 47: 258-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Novak CB, von der Heyde RL. Evidence and techniques in rehabilitation following nerve injuries. Hand Clin 2013; 29 (03) 383-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Chatman AB, Hyams SP, Neel JM. et al. The patient-specific functional scale: measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. Phys Ther 1997; 77 (08) 820-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Horn KK, Jennings S, Richardson G, Vliet DV, Hefford C, Abbott JH. The patient-specific functional scale: psychometrics, clinimetrics, and application as a clinical outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012; 42 (01) 30-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. Am J Ind Med 1996; 29 (06) 602-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN. Upper Extremity Collaborative Group. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (05) 1038-1046
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Novak CB, Anastakis DJ, Beaton DE, Mackinnon SE, Katz J. Relationships among pain disability, pain intensity, illness intrusiveness, and upper extremity disability in patients with traumatic peripheral nerve injury. J Hand Surg Am 2010; 35 (10) 1633-1639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Smith MV, Calfee RP, Baumgarten KM, Brophy RH, Wright RW. Upper extremity-specific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (03) 277-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Oksüz C, Akel BS, Leblebicioğlu G, Kayıhan H. Which hand outcome measurement is best for Turkish speaking patients?. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2012; 46 (02) 83-88
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Gabel CP, Michener L, Melloh M, Cuesta-Vargas A. The psychometric properties of the dash and quickdash. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2015; 45 (05) 426-427
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Ceiling Effect SN. Encyclopedia of Research Design. 2010. :chap 8
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Forget NJ, Jerosch-Herold C, Shepstone L, Higgins J. Psychometric evaluation of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) with Dupuytren's contracture: validity evidence using Rasch modeling. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014; 15 (01) 361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Ducic I, Fu R, Iorio ML. Innovative treatment of peripheral nerve injuries: combined reconstructive concepts. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68 (02) 180-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR, Hayward RA. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am 1998; 23 (04) 575-587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Busuioc SA, Karim M, Bourbonnais D. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, reliability and clinical applicability of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, and its Brief Version, to Canadian French. J Hand Ther 2018; 31 (01) 145-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Shauver MJ, Chung KC. The Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire after 15 years of field trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (05) 779e-787e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Nolte MT, Shauver MJ, Chung KC. Normative values of the michigan hand outcomes questionnaire for patients with and without hand conditions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (03) 425e-433e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ. et al. A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75 (11) 1585-1592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Leite JC, Jerosch-Herold C, Song F. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006; 7 (01) 78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Atroshi I, Lyrén P-E, Gummesson C. The 6-item CTS symptoms scale: a brief outcomes measure for carpal tunnel syndrome. Qual Life Res 2009; 18 (03) 347-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Grandizio LC, Boualam B, Shea P. et al. The reliability of the CTS-6 for examiners with varying levels of clinical experience. J Hand Surg Am 2022; 47 (06) 501-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Craw JR, Church DJ, Hutchison RL. Prospective comparison of the six-item carpal tunnel symptoms scale and portable nerve conduction testing in measuring the outcomes of treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome with steroid injection. Hand (N Y) 2015; 10 (01) 49-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Multanen J, Ylinen J, Karjalainen T, Ikonen J, Häkkinen A, Repo JP. Structural validity of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and its short version, the 6-Item CTS symptoms scale: a Rasch analysis one year after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020; 21 (01) 609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Wouters RM, Jobi-Odeneye AO, de la Torre A, Joseph A, Hovius SER. ICHOM Hand and Wrist Working Group. A standard set for outcome measurement in patients with hand and wrist conditions: consensus by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Hand and Wrist Working Group. J Hand Surg Am 2021; 46 (10) 841-855
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar