Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical innovation has provided new options for the management of complex peripheral nerve injuries, generating renewed interest in this field. Historic literature may be misinterpreted or misquoted, or create dogma, which is perpetuated in teaching, research publications, and clinical practice. The management of peripheral nerve injuries is based on complex decision-making, with potential lifelong ramifications for patients incorrectly receiving an expectant or surgical management plan. METHODS: This article includes opinion from expert leaders in the field of peripheral nerve surgery and questions some of the current assumptions and preconceptions around nerve surgery based on clinical evidence. There was extensive debate regarding the contents of the final article, and the different opinions expressed represent the uncertainty in this field and the differing levels of confidence in available published evidence. RESULTS: Individual practices vary and, therefore, absolute consensus is impossible to achieve. The work is presented as 10 myths which are assessed using both historical and emerging evidence, and areas of uncertainty are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to learn lessons from the past, and scholars of history bear the task of ensuring references are accurately quoted. Expunging myths will enhance care for patients, focus research efforts, and expand on the surgical possibilities within this specialty.