Supraclavicular Approach for Neurogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome (nTOS): Description of a Learning Curve and Patient Functional Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Vol 231 (4) ◽  
pp. S294
Author(s):  
Nikhil Panda ◽  
Will Phillips ◽  
Abraham Geller ◽  
Stuart R. Lipsitz ◽  
Yolonda L. Colson ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Nikhil Panda ◽  
William W. Phillips ◽  
Abraham D. Geller ◽  
Stuart Lipsitz ◽  
Yolonda L. Colson ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Pascal Lavergne ◽  
Hélène T. Khuong

Neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome is an entrapment neuropathy involving the brachial plexus along its trajectory from the cervical spine to the axilla. Clinical presentation includes cervical and upper extremity pain as well as neurologic signs and symptoms in the lower trunk territory. Radiologic and electrophysiologic studies are helpful adjuncts in correctly identifying the site of compression. Initial management is usually conservative, with medication, physical therapy, nerve blocks, or botulinum toxin injection. Surgery often consists of brachial plexus neurolysis and removal of compression points through the supraclavicular approach. Good outcomes can be expected with careful patient selection, but available literature is of limited quality.


Neurosurgery ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 883-890 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel C. Tender ◽  
Ajith J. Thomas ◽  
Najeeb Thomas ◽  
David G. Kline

Abstract OBJECTIVE: Thirty-three patients with true neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome, or Gilliatt-Sumner hand, underwent surgical treatment at Louisiana State University during a 25-year period. This study retrospectively evaluated the outcome referable to pain and motor function in these patients. METHODS: All patients had the typical Gilliatt-Sumner hand, secondary to compression of C8, T1, and/or lower trunk. Nineteen patients underwent an anterior supraclavicular approach, and 15 patients underwent a posterior subscapular approach to the brachial plexus. Nerve action potential recordings showed plexus involvement close to the spine, at the level of the junction of the spinal nerves to the lower trunk. RESULTS: Pain, present in 22 patients, improved in 21. Mild motor deficit improved in 12 of 14 patients. Severe motor deficit improved partially in 14 of 20 patients. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of true neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome provides a clear operative indication. Surgical decompression needs to involve the medial portion of the plexus, and especially the spinal nerves. An anterior supraclavicular approach is preferred in most cases. If there is a large cervical rib or there has been a prior anterior operation, then a posterior subscapular approach is indicated.


2021 ◽  
pp. 101243
Author(s):  
Parménides Guadarrama-Ortíz ◽  
Ingrid Montes de Oca-Vargas ◽  
André Garibay-Gracián ◽  
José Alberto Choreño-Parra ◽  
César Osvaldo Ruíz-Rivero ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Junren Zhang ◽  
Wofhatwa Solomon Ndou ◽  
Nathan Ng ◽  
Paul Gaston ◽  
Philip M. Simpson ◽  
...  

AbstractThis systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the accuracy of component positioning, alignment and balancing techniques employed, patient-reported outcomes, and complications of robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) with manual TKA (mTKA) and the associated learning curve. Searches of PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar were performed in October 2020 using PRISMA guidelines. Search terms included “robotic”, “knee” and “arthroplasty”. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical research articles reporting the learning curve for RATKA and those comparing the component position accuracy, alignment and balancing techniques, functional outcomes, or complications with mTKA. There were 198 articles identified, following full text screening, 16 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and reported the learning curve of rTKA (n=5), component positioning accuracy (n=6), alignment and balancing techniques (n=7), functional outcomes (n=7), or complications (n=5). Two studies reported the learning curve using CUSUM analysis to establish an inflexion point for proficiency which ranged from 7 to 11 cases and there was no learning curve for component positioning accuracy. The meta-analysis showed a significantly lower difference between planned component position and implanted component position, and the spread was narrower for RATKA compared with the mTKA group (Femur coronal: mean 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08–1.55, p<0.00001; Tibia coronal: mean 1.56, 95% CI 1.32–1.81, p<0.00001). Three studies reported using different alignment and balancing techniques between mTKA and RATKA, two studies used the same for both group and two studies did not state the methods used in their RATKA groups. RATKA resulted in better Knee Society Score compared to mTKA in the short-to-mid-term follow up (95%CI [− 1.23,  − 0.51], p=0.004). There was no difference in arthrofibrosis, superficial and deep infection, wound dehiscence, or overall complication rates. RATKA demonstrated improved accuracy of component positioning and patient-reported outcomes. The learning curve of RATKA for operating time was between 7 and 11 cases. Future well-powered studies on RATKAs should report on the knee alignment and balancing techniques utilised to enable better comparisons on which techniques maximise patient outcomes.Level of evidence III.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document