|
Citation
|
Straszewski AJ, Schultz K, Dickherber JL, Dahm JS, Wolf JM, Strelzow JA. J. Hand Surg. Am. 2021; ePub(ePub): ePub. |
|
Abstract
|
PURPOSE: Gunshot wounds can result in a spectrum of injuries to nerves, with little data to guide definitive treatment. We performed a retrospective evaluation of gunshot-related upper extremity injuries in an urban trauma center to analyze epidemiology, associated injuries, and short-term outcomes. We hypothesized that gunshot-related injuries would involve soft tissue cavitation, inducing axonotmesis and neuropraxia rather than neurotmesis injuries.
METHODS: All patients over the age of 16 with upper extremity gunshot trauma from May 2018 to May 2019 were identified through the University of Chicago orthopaedic and general surgery trauma databases. Initial nerve injuries were identified by physical examination. Patient demographic data, soft tissue and skeletal injury, treatment modality, and return of function were collected.
RESULTS: Ballistic injuries in 1302 patients were treated over 12 months. We identified 126 upper extremity gunshot injuries in 117 patients. Thirty-eight upper extremities (38 patients) had a documented nerve deficit (38/126, 30%) with a follow-up rate of 94% (34/36) at a mean of 351 days after injury (median, 202 days; range, 13-929 days). One patient had a subacute transradial amputation, and 1 patient was deceased at final follow-up. The presence of vascular injury and fracture increased the rate of neurologic injury after gunshot injuries. At the most recent follow-up, 68% (23/34) of patients with upper extremity injury had improvement in nerve function as measured by objective clinical assessment, with 24% (8/34) experiencing full recovery at an average of 368 days (median, 261 days; range, 41-929 days).
CONCLUSIONS: Nerve injury after ballistic trauma to the upper extremity is common. Vascular injury and fractures were associated with a higher risk of nerve injury. Short-term improvement in nerve function was seen in over half the cohort, suggesting a predominance of neuropraxic effects. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.
Language: en |