The life altering nature of major limb amputations may be further complicated by neuroma formation in up to 60% of the estimated 2 million major limb amputees in the United States. This can be a source of pain and functional limitation of the residual limb. Pain associated with neuromas may limit prosthetic limb use, require reoperation, lead to opioid dependence, and dramatically reduce quality of life. A number of management options have been described including excision alone, excision with repair, excision with transposition, and targeted muscle reinnervation. Targeted muscle reinnervation has been shown to reduce phantom limb and neuroma pain for patients with upper and lower extremity amputations. It may be performed at the time of initial amputation to prevent pain development or secondarily for the treatment of established pain. Encouraging outcomes have been reported, and targeted muscle reinnervation is emerging as a leading surgical technique for pain prevention in patients undergoing major limb amputations and pain management in patients with pre-existing amputations.

Background: Acellular nerve allografts have been used successfully and with increasing frequency to reconstruct nerve injuries. As their use has been expanded to treat longer gap, larger diameter nerve injuries, some failed cases have been reported. We present the histomorphometry of 5 such cases illustrating these limitations and review the current literature of acellular nerve allografts. Methods: Between 2014 and 2019, 5 patients with iatrogenic nerve injuries to the median or ulnar nerve reconstructed with an AxoGen AVANCE nerve allograft at an outside hospital were treated in our center with allograft excision and alternative reconstruction. These patients had no clinical or electrophysiological evidence of recovery, and allograft specimens at the time of surgery were sent for histomorphological examination. Results: Three patients with a median and 2 with ulnar nerve injury were included. Histology demonstrated myelinated axons present in all proximal native nerve specimens. In 2 cases, axons failed to regenerate into the allograft and in 3 cases, axonal regeneration diminished or terminated within the allograft. Conclusions: The reported cases demonstrate the importance of evaluating the length and the function of nerves undergoing acellular nerve allograft repair. In long length, large-diameter nerves, the use of acellular nerve allografts should be carefully considered.

Background: Transfer of the anterior interosseous nerve (AIN) into the ulnar motor branch improves intrinsic hand function in patients with high ulnar nerve injuries. We report our outcomes of this nerve transfer and hypothesize that any improvement in intrinsic hand function is beneficial to patients. Methods: A retrospective review of all AIN-to-ulnar motor nerve transfers, including both supercharged end-to-side (SETS) and end-to-end (ETE) transfers, from 2011 to 2018 performed by 2 surgeons was conducted. All adult patients who underwent this nerve transfer for any reason with greater than 6 months’ follow-up and completed charts were included. Primary outcome measures were motor function using the British Medical Research Council (BMRC) grading system and subjective satisfaction with surgery using a visual analog scale. Secondary outcome measures included complications and donor site deficits. Results: Of the 57 patients who underwent nerve transfer, 32 patients met the inclusion criteria. The average follow-up and average time to surgery were 12 and 15.6 months, respectively. The overall average BMRC score was 2.9/5, with a trend toward better recovery in patients who received earlier surgery (<12 months = BMRC 3.7, ≥12 months = BMRC 2.2; P < .01). Patients with an SETS transfer had better results that those with an ETE transfer (SETS = 3.2, ETE = 2.6). There were no donor deficits after operation. One patient developed complex regional pain syndrome. Conclusions: Patients with earlier surgery and an in-continuity nerve (receiving an SETS transfer) showed improved recovery with a higher BMRC grade compared with those who underwent later surgery. Any improvements in intrinsic hand function would be beneficial to patients.

Gender-affirming vaginoplasty (GAV) comprises the construction of a vulva and a neovaginal canal. Although technical nuances of vulvar construction vary between surgeons, vulvar construction is always performed using the homologous penile and scrotal tissues to construct the corresponding vulvar structures. Therefore, the main differentiating factor across gender-affirming vaginoplasty techniques is the tissue that is utilized to construct the neovaginal canal. These tissue types vary markedly in their availability, histology, and ease of harvest and have different advantages and disadvantages to their use as neovaginal lining. In this narrative review, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of the tissue types and associated operative approaches used for construction of the neovagina in GAV. Tissue choice is guided by several factors, such as histological similarity to natal vaginal mucosa, tissue availability, lubrication potential, additional donor site morbidity, and the specific goals of each patient. Skin is used to construct the neovagina in most cases with a combination of pedicled penile skin flaps and scrotal and extra-genital skin grafts. However, skin alternatives such as peritoneum and intestine are increasing in use. Peritoneum and intestine are emerging as options for primary vaginoplasty in cases of limited genital skin or revision vaginoplasty procedures. The increasing number of gender-affirming vaginoplasty procedures performed and the changing patient demographics from factors such as pubertal suppression have resulted in rapidly evolving indications for the use of these differing vaginoplasty techniques. This review sheds light on the use of less frequently utilized tissue types described for construction of the neovaginal canal, including mucosal tissues such as urethral and buccal mucosa, the tunica vaginalis, and dermal matrix allografts and xenografts. Although the body of evidence for each vaginoplasty technique is growing, there is a need for large prospective comparison studies of outcomes between these techniques and the tissue types used to line the neovaginal canal to better define indications and limitations.