Traumatic Peroneal Nerve Injuries: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The common peroneal nerve (CPN) is the most commonly injured peripheral nerve of the lower extremity in patients with trauma. Traumatic CPN injuries have historically been associated with relatively poor outcomes and patient satisfaction, although improved surgical technique and novel procedures appear to improve outcomes. Given the variety of underlying injury modalities, treatment options, and prognostic variables, we sought to evaluate and summarize the current literature on traumatic CPN injuries and to provide recommendations from an analysis of the included studies for treatment and future research.

METHODS: A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Search terms consisted of variations of "peroneal nerve" or "fibular nerve" combined with "injury," "laceration," "entrapment," "repair," or "neurolysis." Information with regard to treatment modality, outcomes, and patient demographic characteristics was recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS: The initial search yielded 2,301 articles; 42 met eligibility criteria. Factors associated with better outcomes included a shorter preoperative interval, shorter graft length when an interposed graft was used, nerve continuity, and younger patient age. Gender or sex was not mentioned as a factor affecting outcomes in any study. Motor grades of ≥M3 on the British Medical Research Council (MRC) scale are typically considered successful outcomes. This was achieved in 81.4% of patients who underwent neurolysis, 78.8% of patients who underwent end-to-end suturing, 49.0% of patients who underwent nerve grafting, 62.9% of patients who underwent nerve transfer, 81.5% of patients who underwent isolated posterior tibial tendon transfer (PTTT), and 84.2% of patients who underwent a surgical procedure with concurrent PTTT.

CONCLUSIONS: Studies included in this review were heterogenous, complicating our ability to perform further analysis. It is not possible to uniformly advocate for the best treatment option, given diverse injury modalities and patient presentations and a variety of prognostic factors. Many studies do not show outcomes with respect to injury modality. Future studies should show preoperative muscle strengths and should clearly define outcomes based on the injury modality and surgical treatment option. This would allow for greater analysis of the most appropriate treatment option for a given mechanism of injury. Newer surgical techniques are promising and should be further explored.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.