Clinical Outcomes of Nerve Transfers in Peroneal Nerve Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Given the unsatisfactory outcomes with traditional treatments, there is growing interest in nerve transfers to reestablish ankle dorsiflexion in peroneal nerve palsy. The objective of this work was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the primary literature to assess the effectiveness of nerve transfer surgery in restoring ankle dorsiflexion in patients with peroneal nerve palsy. Methods Methodology was registered with PROSPERO, and PRISMA guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched. English studies investigating outcomes of nerve transfers in peroneal nerve palsy were included. Two reviewers completed screening and extraction. Methodological quality was evaluated with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results Literature search identified 108 unique articles. Following screening, 14 full-text articles were reviewed. Four retrospective case series met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Overall, 41 patients underwent nerve transfer for peroneal nerve palsy. The mean age of the patients was 36.1 years, mean time to surgery was 6.3 months, and the mean follow-up period was 19.0 months. Donor nerve was either tibial (n = 36) or superficial peroneal branches/fascicles (n = 5). Recipient nerve was either deep peroneal (n = 24) or tibialis anterior branch (n = 17). Postoperative ankle dorsiflexion strength demonstrated a bimodal distribution with a mean Medical Research Council of 2.1. There were no significant differences in dorsiflexion strength between injury sites (p = 0.491), injury mechanisms (p = 0.125), donor (p = 0.066), or recipient nerves (p = 0.496). There were no significant correlations between dorsiflexion strength and patient age (p = 0.094) or time to surgery (p = 0.493). Conclusions There is variability in dorsiflexion strength following nerve transfer in peroneal nerve palsy, whereby there appear to be responders and non-responders. Further studies are needed to better define appropriate patient selection and the role of nerve transfers in the management of peroneal nerve palsy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".