Chronic pain after breast cancer surgery, affecting 25%-60% of patients, significantly impacts the survivors' quality of life. With improved survival rates, more individuals are experiencing this long-term complication. It is often overlooked that this chronic pain may stem from peripheral nerve injury, resulting in neuropathic pain characterized by burning sensations, electric shocks, and heightened sensitivity. Although neuropathic pain prevalence is reported at 24%-36% post-mastectomy, the data following breast-conserving surgery remain limited. This systematic review aimed to investigate the prevalence of neuropathic pain after breast-conserving surgery and its potential association with axillary procedures. The electronic databases, Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central, were searched. Inclusion criteria were defined to include studies reporting on the prevalence of neuropathic pain following breast-conserving surgery and exploring associations with axillary procedures. A meta-analysis was performed to compute a pooled prevalence rate. Eight studies, covering 1,469 patients post-breast-conserving surgery, met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed a pooled prevalence of 31% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.14-0.56) neuropathic pain among patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery. Six studies explored associations with axillary procedures; however, none suggested a correlation between axillary procedures and neuropathic pain after breast-conserving surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated a pooled prevalence of 31% neuropathic pain following breast-conserving surgery of, with confidence interval ranging from 14% to 56%. The review did not provide conclusive evidence to suggest correlations between axillary procedures and neuropathic pain after breast-conserving surgery.

Although intraoperative electrical nerve stimulation appears to be a promising neuroenhancing adjunct to peripheral nerve repair, insight into its effects on nerve regeneration is essential to advocate its application in clinical settings. This study examined whether electrical stimulation during microsurgical repair of peripheral nerve injury results in enhanced nerve regeneration compared to suture repair alone in experimental animals. A systematic search in Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases was performed from inception to March 22, 2024. The search included animal studies assessing outcomes following peripheral nerve repair with and without intraoperative electrical stimulation. Outcomes were subdivided into 4 categories: motor function, sensory function, electrophysiology, and histology. We calculated standardized mean differences and combined these using random effects models to estimate the overall effect. The risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE tool. From 3615 references, 21 articles were included. Thirteen studies evaluated motor functional outcomes and showed that electrical stimulation improved functional index, muscle mass, muscle force, footstep accuracy, footprint, and joint angle measures. Six studies examined sensory function and found that electrical stimulation improved mechanical algesimetry. Nine studies assessed electrophysiology outcomes. Although conduction velocity did not differ between the groups, electrical stimulation resulted in a higher amplitude and lower latency. Twenty studies evaluated the histological outcomes and demonstrated increased axon count and myelin thickness, whereas axon diameter and G-ratio did not differ. The results suggest that intraoperative electrical stimulation following peripheral nerve repair accelerates and improves nerve regeneration compared with nerve repair alone. PROSPERO CRD42023455066.

Background/Objectives: Tendon injuries are a common cause of emergency department presentation and impose a substantial socioeconomic burden. Despite advances in surgical techniques, rupture rates after primary repair remain at 3.1–11.7%. Contemporary repairs typically combine at least four core strands with epitenon sutures to achieve sufficient tensile strength while limiting bulk. Increasing the number of core strands improves strength but may impair gliding and healing. Looped core sutures increase the effective strand number without additional knots or passes, potentially allowing omission of the epitenon suture and thus limiting repair complexity and bulk. The objective was to determine whether six- or eight-strand looped core suture techniques provide sufficient tensile strength to allow omission of an epitenon suture without excessive repair bulk, compared with a conventional four-strand Adelaide repair. Methods: One hundred and twenty human flexor digitorum profundus tendons were harvested from fresh-frozen anatomical specimens and allocated to six groups: Adelaide (four-strand) ± epitenon suture, six-strand ± epitenon suture, and eight-strand ± epitenon suture. Repairs were performed in zone II. The cross-sectional area (CSA) was measured before and after repair to quantify bulkiness. Tendons were tested to failure using axial tensile loading, and the failure mode was recorded. Results: The Adelaide with epitenon suture, six-strand with epitenon suture, and eight-strand with epitenon suture demonstrated significantly higher load to failure than the Adelaide without epitenon suture. The eight-strand without epitenon suture achieved a load to failure comparable to the Adelaide with epitenon suture, while also resulting in a smaller increase in CSA. The Adelaide with epitenon suture showed the greatest increase in CSA, while the six-strand without epitenon suture showed the smallest increase in CSA. Suture breakage was the predominant failure mode. Conclusions: An eight-strand looped core suture without epitenon suture provides comparable tensile strength to the conventional Adelaide repair with epitenon suture while minimizing repair bulk. The six-strand with epitenon suture demonstrated similar tensile strength to higher-strand techniques and may represent a mechanically adequate alternative with less tissue manipulation. These findings support a more individualized approach to flexor tendon repair, in which the choice of repair construct can be tailored to biomechanical demands and clinical context rather than applying a single uniform technique.