Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this review article, the authors offer their perspective on nerve surgery for nerve injury, with a focus on recent evolution of management and the current surgical management. The authors provide a brief historical perspective to lay the foundations of the modern understanding of clinical nerve injury and its evolving management, especially over the last century. The shift from evaluation of the nerve injury using macroscopic techniques of exploration and external neurolysis to microscopic interrogation, interfascicular dissection, and internal neurolysis along with the use of intraoperative electrophysiology were important advances of the past 50 years. By the late 20th century, the advent and popularization of interfascicular nerve grafting techniques heralded a major advance in nerve reconstruction and allowed good outcomes to be achieved in a large percentage of nerve injury repair cases. In the past 2 decades, there has been a paradigm shift in surgical nerve repair, wherein surgeons are not only directing the repair at the injury zone, but also are deliberately performing distal-targeted nerve transfers as a preferred alternative in an attempt to restore function. The peripheral rewiring approach allows the surgeon to convert a very proximal injury with long regeneration distances and (often) uncertain outcomes to a distal injury and repair with a greater potential of regenerative success and functional recovery. Nerve transfers, originally performed as a salvage procedure for severe brachial plexus avulsion injuries, are now routinely done for various less severe brachial plexus injuries and many other proximal nerve injuries, with reliably good to even excellent results. The outcomes from nerve transfers for select clinical nerve injury are emphasized in this review. Extension of the rewiring paradigm with nerve transfers for CNS lesions such as spinal cord injury and stroke are showing great potential and promise. Cortical reeducation is required for success, and an emerging field of rehabilitation and restorative neurosciences is evident, which couples a nerve transfer procedure to robotically controlled limbs and mind-machine interfacing. The future for peripheral nerve repair has never been more exciting.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".