Fascicular Selection for Nerve Transfers: The Role of the Nerve Stimulator When Restoring Elbow Flexion in Brachial Plexus Injuries

2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (12) ◽  
pp. 2002-2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prem Singh Bhandari ◽  
Prabal Deb
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Nerve Stimulator ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Selection For

scholarly journals Investigation Into the Optimal Number of Intercostal Nerve Transfers for Musculocutaneous Nerve Reinnervation: A Systematic Review

Hand ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 621-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyuma A. Leland ◽  
Beina Azadgoli ◽  
Daniel J. Gould ◽  
Mitchel Seruya
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Donor Site Morbidity ◽  
Intercostal Nerve ◽  
Optimal Number ◽  
Musculocutaneous Nerve ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: The purpose of this study was to systematically review outcomes following intercostal nerve (ICN) transfer for restoration of elbow flexion, with a focus on identifying the optimal number of nerve transfers. Methods: A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies describing ICN transfers to the musculocutaneous nerve (MCN) for traumatic brachial plexus injuries in patients 16 years or older. Demographics were recorded, including age, time to operation, and level of brachial plexus injury. Muscle strength was scored based upon the British Medical Research Council scale. Results: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria for a total of 196 patients. Either 2 (n = 113), 3 (n = 69), or 4 (n = 11) ICNs were transferred to the MCN in each patient. The groups were similar with regard to patient demographics. Elbow flexion ≥M3 was achieved in 71.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.1%-79.7%) of patients with 2 ICNs, 67.7% (95% CI, 55.3%-78.0%) of patients with 3 ICNs, and 77.0% (95% CI, 44.9%-93.2%) of patients with 4 ICNs ( P = .79). Elbow flexion ≥M4 was achieved in 51.1% (95% CI, 37.4%-64.6%) of patients with 2 ICNs, 42.1% (95% CI, 29.5%-55.9%) of patients with 3 ICNs, and 48.4% (95% CI, 19.2%-78.8%) of patients with 4 ICNs ( P = .66). Conclusions: Previous reports have described 2.5 times increased morbidity with each additional ICN harvest. Based on the equivalent strength of elbow flexion irrespective of the number of nerves transferred, 2 ICNs are recommended to the MCN to avoid further donor-site morbidity.

Trends in Brachial Plexus Surgery: Characterizing Contemporary Practices for Exploration of Supraclavicular Plexus

Hand ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 155894472110146
Author(s):  
J. Ryan Hill ◽  
Steven T. Lanier ◽  
Liz Rolf ◽  
Aimee S. James ◽  
David M. Brogan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Technical Difficulty ◽  
Nerve Grafting ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Lower Trunk ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Case Vignettes ◽  
Distal Nerve

Background There is variability in treatment strategies for patients with brachial plexus injury (BPI). We used qualitative research methods to better understand surgeons’ rationale for treatment approaches. We hypothesized that distal nerve transfers would be preferred over exploration and nerve grafting of the brachial plexus. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with BPI surgeons to discuss 3 case vignettes: pan-plexus injury, upper trunk injury, and lower trunk injury. The interview guide included questions regarding overall treatment strategy, indications and utility of brachial plexus exploration, and the role of nerve grafting and/or nerve transfers. Interview transcripts were coded by 2 researchers. We performed inductive thematic analysis to collate these codes into themes, focusing on the role of brachial plexus exploration in the treatment of BPI. Results Most surgeons routinely explore the supraclavicular brachial plexus in situations of pan-plexus and upper trunk injuries. Reasons to explore included the importance of obtaining a definitive root level diagnosis, perceived availability of donor nerve roots, timing of anticipated recovery, plans for distal reconstruction, and the potential for neurolysis. Very few explore lower trunk injuries, citing concern with technical difficulty and unfavorable risk-benefit profile. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that supraclavicular exploration remains a foundational component of surgical management of BPI, despite increasing utilization of distal nerve transfers. Availability of abundant donor axons and establishing an accurate diagnosis were cited as primary reasons in support of exploration. This analysis of surgeon interviews characterizes contemporary practices regarding the role of brachial plexus exploration in the treatment of BPI.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Upper brachial plexus injury in adults: comparative effectiveness of different repair techniques

2015 ◽  
Vol 122 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zarina S. Ali ◽  
Gregory G. Heuer ◽  
Ryan W. F. Faught ◽  
Shriya H. Kaneriya ◽  
Umar A. Sheikh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Surgical Approaches ◽  
Shoulder Abduction ◽  
Nerve Grafting ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Repair Techniques

OBJECT Adult upper trunk brachial plexus injuries result in significant disability. Several surgical treatment strategies exist, including nerve grafting, nerve transfers, and a combination of both approaches. However, no existing data clearly indicate the most successful strategy for restoring elbow flexion and shoulder abduction in these patients. The authors reviewed the literature to compare outcomes of the three surgical repair techniques listed above to determine the optimal approach to traumatic injury to the upper brachial plexus in adults. METHODS Both PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for English-language articles containing the MeSH topic “brachial plexus” in conjunction with the word “injury” or “trauma” in the title and “surgery” or “repair” as a MeSH subheading or in the title, excluding pediatric articles and those articles limited to avulsions. The search was also limited to articles published after 1990 and containing at least 10 operated cases involving upper brachial plexus injuries. The search was supplemented with articles obtained through the “Related Articles” feature on PubMed and the bibliographies of selected publications. From the articles was collected information on the operation performed, number of operated cases, mean subject ages, sex distribution, interval between injury and surgery, source of nerve transfers, mean duration of follow-up, year of publication, and percentage of operative success in terms of elbow flexion and shoulder abduction of the injured limb. The recovery of elbow flexion and shoulder abduction was separately analyzed. A subanalysis was also performed to assess the recovery of elbow flexion following various neurotization techniques. RESULTS As regards the restoration of elbow flexion, nerve grafting led to significantly better outcomes than either nerve transfer or the combined techniques (F = 4.71, p = 0.0097). However, separating the Oberlin procedure from other neurotization techniques revealed that the former was significantly more successful (F = 82.82, p < 0.001). Moreover, in comparing the Oberlin procedure to nerve grafting or combined procedures, again the former was significantly more successful than either of the latter two approaches (F = 53.14; p < 0.001). In the restoration of shoulder abduction, nerve transfer was significantly more successful than the combined procedure (p = 0.046), which in turn was significantly better than nerve grafting procedures (F = 5.53, p = 0.0044). CONCLUSIONS According to data in this study, in upper trunk brachial plexus injuries in adults, the Oberlin procedure and nerve transfers are the more successful approaches to restore elbow flexion and shoulder abduction, respectively, compared with nerve grafting or combined techniques. A prospective, randomized controlled trial would be necessary to fully elucidate differences in outcome among the various surgical approaches.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document