A Comparison of Intercostal and Partial Ulnar Nerve Transfers in Restoring Elbow Flexion Following Upper Brachial Plexus Injury (C5-C6±C7)

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 1297-1303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bertrand Coulet ◽  
Jorge G. Boretto ◽  
Cyril Lazerges ◽  
Michel Chammas
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Ulnar Nerve ◽  
Brachial Plexus Injury ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Nerve Transfers

Contralateral motor rootlets and ipsilateral nerve transfers in brachial plexus reconstruction

2004 ◽  
Vol 101 (5) ◽  
pp. 770-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayme Augusto Bertelli ◽  
Marcos Flávio Ghizoni
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Ulnar Nerve ◽  
Phrenic Nerve ◽  
Cranial Nerve ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Contralateral Motor ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes in patients with brachial plexus avulsion injuries who underwent contralateral motor rootlet and ipsilateral nerve transfers to reconstruct shoulder abduction/external rotation and elbow flexion. Methods. Within 6 months after the injury, 24 patients with a mean age of 21 years underwent surgery in which the contralateral C-7 motor rootlet was transferred to the suprascapular nerve by using sural nerve grafts. The biceps motor branch or the musculocutaneous nerve was repaired either by an ulnar nerve fascicular transfer or by transfer of the 11th cranial nerve or the phrenic nerve. The mean recovery in abduction was 90° and 92° in external rotation. In cases of total palsy, only two patients recovered external rotation and in those cases mean external rotation was 70°. Elbow flexion was achieved in all cases. In cases of ulnar nerve transfer, the muscle scores were M5 in one patient, M4 in six patients, and M3+ in five patients. Elbow flexion repair involving the use of the 11th cranial nerve resulted in a score of M3+ in five patients and M4 in two patients. After surgery involving the phrenic nerve, two patients received a score of M3+ and two a score of M4. Results were clearly better in patients with partial lesions and in those who were shorter than 170 cm (p < 0.01). The length of the graft used in motor rootlet transfers affected only the recovery of external rotation. There was no permanent injury at the donor sites. Conclusions. Motor rootlet transfer represents a reliable and potent neurotizer that allows the reconstruction of abduction and external rotation in partial injuries.

Nerve transfers to the biceps and brachialis branches to improve elbow flexion strength after brachial plexus injuries

2004 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 313-318
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Tung ◽  
Christine B. Novak ◽  
Susan E. Mackinnon
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Ulnar Nerve ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Musculocutaneous Nerve ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Brachialis Muscle ◽  
Nerve Fascicle ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Time ◽  
Flexion Strength

Object In this study the authors evaluated the outcome in patients with brachial plexus injuries who underwent nerve transfers to the biceps and the brachialis branches of the musculocutaneous nerve. Methods The charts of eight patients who underwent an ulnar nerve fascicle transfer to the biceps branch of the musculocutaneous nerve and a separate transfer to the brachialis branch were retrospectively reviewed. Outcome was assessed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) grade to classify elbow flexion strength in conjunction with electromyography (EMG). The mean patient age was 26.4 years (range 16–45 years) and the mean time from injury to surgery was 3.8 months (range 2.5–7.5 months). Recovery of elbow flexion was MRC Grade 4 in five patients, and Grade 4+in three. Reinnervation of both the biceps and brachialis muscles was confirmed on EMG studies. Ulnar nerve function was not downgraded in any patient. Conclusions The use of nerve transfers to reinnervate the biceps and brachialis muscle provides excellent elbow flexion strength in patients with brachial plexus nerve injuries.

Minimum Ten-Year Outcomes of Partial Ulnar Nerve Transfer for Restoration of Elbow Flexion in Patients with Upper Brachial Plexus Injury

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (03) ◽  
pp. 283-288
Author(s):  
Yusuke Nagano ◽  
Daisuke Kawamura ◽  
Alaa Terkawi ◽  
Atsushi Urita ◽  
Yuichiro Matsui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Ulnar Nerve ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Brachial Plexus Injury ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Flexion Strength

Background: Partial ulnar nerve transfer to the biceps motor branch of the musculocutaneous nerve (Oberlin’s transfer) is a successful approach to restore elbow flexion in patients with upper brachial plexus injury (BPI). However, there is no report on more than 10 years subjective and objective outcomes. The purpose of this study was to clarify the long-term outcomes of Oberlin’s transfer based on the objective evaluation of elbow flexion strength and subjective functional evaluation of patients. Methods: Six patients with BPI who underwent Oberlin’s transfer were reviewed retrospectively by their medical records. The mean age at surgery was 29.5 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 13 years. The objective functional outcomes were evaluated by biceps muscle strength using the Medical Research Council (MRC) grade at preoperative, postoperative, and final follow-up. The patient-derived subjective functional outcomes were evaluated using the Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire at final follow-up. Results: All patients had MRC grade 0 (M0) or 1 (M1) elbow flexion strength before operation. Four patients gained M4 postoperatively and maintained or increased muscle strength at the final follow-up. One patient gained M3 postoperatively and at the final follow-up. Although one patient achieved M4 postoperatively, the strength was reduced to M2 due to additional disorder. The mean score of QuickDASH was 36.5 (range, 7–71). Patients were divided into two groups; three patients had lower scores and the other three patients had higher scores of QuickDASH. Conclusions: Oberlin’s transfer is effective in the restoration of elbow flexion and can maintain the strength for more than 10 years. Patients with upper BPI with restored elbow flexion strength and no complicated nerve disorders have over ten-year subjective satisfaction.

Elbow flexion strength and contractile activity after partial ulnar nerve or intercostal nerve transfers for brachial plexus injuries

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 818-826
Author(s):  
Dawn Sinn Yii Chia ◽  
Kazuteru Doi ◽  
Yasunori Hattori ◽  
Sotetsu Sakamoto
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Ulnar Nerve ◽  
Muscle Power ◽  
Contractile Activity ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Intercostal Nerve ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Forearm Muscles ◽  
Flexion Strength

We compared the outcomes of 23 partial ulnar nerve and 15 intercostal nerve transfers for elbow flexion reconstruction in patients with C56 or C567 brachial plexus injuries using manual muscle power, dynamometric measurements of elbow flexion strength and electromyography. The range of elbow flexion and muscle strength recovery to Grade 3 or 4 were comparable between the two groups. The patients with C567 injuries had significantly stronger eccentric contraction after the partial ulnar nerve transfer than after the intercostal nerve transfer ( p < 0.05). Electromyography of individual muscles demonstrated that the patients with partial ulnar nerve transfers were unable to voluntarily isolate biceps contraction and recruited forearm flexors and extensors. The patients after partial ulnar nerve transfer had significantly more activity of the forearm muscles during concentric elbow flexion than after intercostal nerve transfers ( p < 0.05). We conclude that partial ulnar nerve transfers were superior to intercostal nerve transfers when assessed quantitatively with the dynamometer to evaluate elbow flexion, although simultaneous recruitment of forearm muscles may have contributed to the increased elbow flexion strength in the patients with the partial ulnar nerve transfer. Level of evidence: III

scholarly journals Reinnervation of the biceps in C5–7 brachial plexus avulsion injuries: results after distal bypass surgery

2004 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Ferraresi ◽  
Debora Garozzo ◽  
Paolo Buffatti
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Ulnar Nerve ◽  
Hand Function ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Musculocutaneous Nerve ◽  
Biceps Muscle ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Normal Hand ◽  
Nerve Dysfunction

Object The authors report various techniques, and their results, after performing median and ulnar nerve transfers to reanimate the biceps muscle in C5–7 avulsion-related brachial plexus injuries (BPIs). Methods Forty-three adult patients with BPIs of the upper-middle plexus underwent reinnervation of the biceps muscle; neurotization of the musculocutaneous nerve was performed using fascicles from the ulnar nerve (39 cases) and the median nerve (four cases). The different techniques included sectioning, rerouting, and direct suturing of the entire musculocutaneous nerve (35 cases); direct reinnervation of the motor branches of the musculocutaneous nerve (three cases); and reinnervation using small grafts to the motor fascicles that enter the biceps muscle (five cases). Elbow flexion recovery ranged from M2 to M4+, according to the patient's age and the level of integrity of the hand. No surgery-related failure occurred. No significant difference in outcome was related to any of the technical variants. In patients younger than age 45 years and exhibiting a normal hand function a score of M4 or better was always achieved. On average, reinnervation occurred 6 months after surgery. There was no clinical evidence of donor nerve dysfunction. Conclusions When accurate selection criteria are met, the results after this type of neurotization have proved excellent.

Restoration of Elbow Flexion in Traumatic Upper Brachial Plexus Palsy in Adults: Outcome with Intraplexus Distal Nerve Transfers in 78 Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (04) ◽  
pp. 285-290
Author(s):  
Mario Siqueira ◽  
Roberto Martins ◽  
Wilson Faglioni Junior ◽  
Luciano Foroni ◽  
Carlos Heise
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Median Nerve ◽  
Ulnar Nerve ◽  
Traumatic Injury ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Distal Nerve

Objective To present the functional outcomes of distal nerve transfer techniques for restoration of elbow flexion after upper brachial plexus injury. Method The files of 78 adult patients with C5, C6, ± C7 lesions were reviewed. The attempt to restore elbow flexion was made by intraplexus distal nerve transfers using a fascicle of the ulnar nerve (group A, n = 43), or a fascicle of the median nerve (group B, n = 16) or a combination of both (group C, n = 19). The result of the treatment was defined based on the British Medical Research Council grading system: muscle strength < M3 was considered a poor result. Results The global incidence of good/excellent results with these nerve transfers was 80.7%, and for different surgical techniques (groups A, B, C), it was 86%, 56.2% and 100% respectively. Patients submitted to ulnar nerve transfer or double transfer (ulnar + median fascicles transfer) had a better outcome than those submitted to median nerve transfer alone (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the outcome of ulnar transfer and double transfer. Conclusion In cases of traumatic injury of the upper brachial plexus, good and excelent results in the restoration of elbow flexion can be obtained using distal nerve transfers.

scholarly journals Outcome of double nerve transfer close to target muscle both for shoulder abduction and elbow flexion in early C5 –C6 Brachial Plexus injury.

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (07) ◽  
pp. 1442-1447
Author(s):  
Husnain Khan ◽  
Muhammad Shafique ◽  
Zahid Iqbal Bhatti ◽  
Tehseen Ahmad Cheema
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Posterior Approach ◽  
Brachial Plexus Injury ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Suprascapular Nerve ◽  
Axillary Nerve ◽  
Shoulder Abduction ◽  
Motor Branch ◽  
Nerve Transfers

Adult brachial plexus injury is a now a common problem due to high incidence of motorbike accidents. Among all types, C 5 and C6 (upper brachial plexus injury) is the most common. If the patient present within 6 months then nerve transfer is the preferred treatment. However, there are different options for nerve transfer and different approaches for surgery. Objectives: The objective of the study was to share our experience of nerve transfer close to target muscles in upper brachial plexus injury. Study Design: Quaisi experimental study. Setting: National Orthopaedic Hospital, Bahawalpur. Period: January 2015 to June 2018. Material & Methods: Total 32 patients were operated with isolated C5 and C6 injury. In all patients four nerve transfers were done. For shoulder abduction posterior approach was used and accessory to suprascapular nerve and one of motor branch of radial to axillary nerve were transferred. Modified Oberlin transfer was done for elbow flexion. Both shoulder abduction and elbow flexion was graded according to medical research council grading system. Results: After one year follow up more than 75% of the patients showed good to normal shoulder abduction and 87.50% showed good to normal elbow flexion. Residual Median nerve damage was noted only in two patients (6.25%). Conclusion: If there is no evidence of recovery up to three months early nerve transfer should be considered, ideal time is 3-6 months. Nerve transfer close to target muscle yields superior results. The shoulder stabilizers and abductors should ideally be innervated by double nerve transfer through posterior approach. Similarly double fascicular transfer (modified Oberlin) should be done for elbow flexion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document