Conclusion
There was no significant difference by electromyographic or histologic evaluation between orthodromic and antidromic nerve grafts. Direct nerve repair with moderate tension may be a more effective treatment than nerve grafting.
Methods
In 14 of the 26 rabbits used in this study, a 1 cm defect was made in the tibial nerve. An orthodromic nerve graft on one side and an antidromic nerve graft on the other were performed using a 1.2 cm long segment of the peroneal nerve. In the remaining 12 rabbits, the tibial nerve was transected completely and then repaired microscopically on one side but left untreated on the other. Electrophysiologic studies were performed in all animals at 8 weeks after surgery, and the sciatic nerves were harvested.
Purpose
Although many surgeons have anecdotally described reversing the polarity of the autograft with the intent of improving regeneration, the optimal orientation of the autogenous nerve graft remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare (1) the outcomes of orthodromic and antidromic nerve grafts to clarify the effect of nerve graft polarity and (2) the outcome of either form of nerve grafts with that of nerve repair.
Results
Compound motor action potential was visible in all rabbits treated by nerve repair but in only half of the rabbits treated by nerve graft. There was no significant difference in the compound motor action potential, nerve conduction velocity, or total number of axons between the orthodromic and antidromic nerve graft groups. However, in both groups, the outcome was significantly poorer than that of the nerve repair group.