Restoration of Shoulder Abduction in Brachial Plexus Injury with Phrenic Nerve Transfer

2000 ◽  
Vol 70 (11) ◽  
pp. 783-785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adisak Sungpet ◽  
Chanyuth Suphachatwong ◽  
Viroj Kawinwonggowith
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Phrenic Nerve ◽  
Brachial Plexus Injury ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Shoulder Abduction

scholarly journals Quantifying Real-World Upper-Limb Activity Via Patient-Initiated Movement After Nerve Reconstruction for Upper Brachial Plexus Injury

Neurosurgery ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 369-374
Author(s):  
Brandon W Smith ◽  
Kate W-C Chang ◽  
Serena J Saake ◽  
Lynda J-S Yang ◽  
Kevin C Chung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Real World ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Brachial Plexus Injury ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Shoulder Abduction ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Motion Detectors

Abstract BACKGROUND A critical concept in brachial plexus reconstruction is the accurate assessment of functional outcomes. The current standard for motor outcome assessment is clinician-elicited, outpatient clinic-based, serial evaluation of range of motion and muscle power. However, discrepancies exist between such clinical measurements and actual patient-initiated use. We employed emerging technology in the form of accelerometry-based motion detectors to quantify real-world arm use after brachial plexus surgery. OBJECTIVE To evaluate (1) the ability of accelerometry-based motion detectors to assess functional outcome and (2) the real-world arm use of patients after nerve transfer for brachial plexus injury, through a pilot study. METHODS Five male patients who underwent nerve transfer after brachial plexus injury wore bilateral motion detectors for 7 d. The patients also underwent range-of-motion evaluation and completed multiple patient-reported outcome surveys. RESULTS The average age of the recruits was 41 yr (±17 yr), and the average time from operation was 2 yr (±1 yr). The VT (time of use ratio) for the affected side compared to the unaffected side was 0.73 (±0.27), and the VM (magnitude ratio) was 0.63 (±0.59). VT strongly and positively correlated with shoulder flexion and shoulder abduction: 0.97 (P = .008) and 0.99 (P = .002), respectively. CONCLUSION Accelerometry-based activity monitors can successfully assess real-world functional outcomes after brachial plexus reconstruction. This pilot study demonstrates that patients after nerve transfer are utilizing their affected limbs significantly in daily activities and that recovery of shoulder function is critical.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Nerve Transfer and Nerve Repair for the Treatment of Adult Upper Brachial Plexus Injury

Neurosurgery ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynda J.-S. Yang ◽  
Kate W.-C. Chang ◽  
Kevin C. Chung
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Scale Score ◽  
Brachial Plexus Injury ◽  
Nerve Repair ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Shoulder Abduction ◽  
Nerve Reconstruction ◽  
Operative Exploration ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Nerve reconstruction for upper brachial plexus injury consists of nerve repair and/or transfer. Current literature lacks evidence supporting a preferred surgical treatment for adults with such injury involving shoulder and elbow function. We systematically reviewed the literature published from January 1990 to February 2011 using multiple databases to search the following: brachial plexus and graft, repair, reconstruction, nerve transfer, neurotization. Of 1360 articles initially identified, 33 were included in analysis, with 23 nerve transfer (399 patients), 6 nerve repair (99 patients), and 4 nerve transfer + proximal repair (117 patients) citations (mean preoperative interval, 6 ± 1.9 months). For shoulder abduction, no significant difference was found in the rates ratio (comparative probabilities of event occurrence) among the 3 methods to achieve a Medical Research Council (MRC) scale score of 3 or higher or a score of 4 or higher. For elbow flexion, the rates ratio for nerve transfer vs nerve repair to achieve an MRC scale score of 3 was 1.46 (P = .03); for nerve transfer vs nerve transfer + proximal repair to achieve an MRC scale score of 3 was 1.45 (P = .02) and an MRC scale score of 4 was 1.47 (P = .05). Therefore, for elbow flexion recovery, nerve transfer is somewhat more effective than nerve repair; however, no particular reconstruction strategy was found to be superior to recover shoulder abduction. When considering nerve reconstruction strategies, our findings do not support the sole use of nerve transfer in upper brachial plexus injury without operative exploration to provide a clear understanding of the pathoanatomy. Supraclavicular brachial plexus exploration plays an important role in developing individual surgical strategies, and nerve repair (when donor stumps are available) should remain the standard for treatment of upper brachial plexus injury except in isolated cases solely lacking elbow flexion.

Restoration of Shoulder Abduction by Nerve Transfer in Avulsed Brachial Plexus Injury

1995 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Chwei-Chin Chuang ◽  
Gilbert W. Lee ◽  
Fuad Hashem ◽  
Fu-Chan Wei
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Brachial Plexus Injury ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Shoulder Abduction

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.

Clinical Outcomes after a Modified End-to-Side Nerve Transfer Using the Phrenic Nerve as a Donor for Treatment of Brachial Plexus Injury

2013 ◽  
Vol 132 ◽  
pp. 85
Author(s):  
Jacques A. Machol ◽  
Ji-Geng Yan ◽  
Robert C. Fang ◽  
Lin-Ling Zhang ◽  
James R. Sanger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Phrenic Nerve ◽  
Brachial Plexus Injury ◽  
Nerve Transfer

scholarly journals Pearls and Pitfalls of Phrenic Nerve Transfer for Shoulder Reconstruction in Brachial Plexus Injury

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (01) ◽  
pp. e1-e9
Author(s):  
Kazuteru Doi ◽  
Sei Haw Sem ◽  
Bipin Ghanghurde ◽  
Yasunori Hattori ◽  
Sotetsu Sakamoto
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Phrenic Nerve ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Brachial Plexus Injury ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Suprascapular Nerve ◽  
Pulmonary Complications ◽  
Predisposing Factors ◽  
Shoulder Range Of Motion ◽  
Shoulder Reconstruction

Abstract Objectives The purpose of this study was to report the functional outcomes of phrenic nerve transfer (PNT) to suprascapular nerve (SSN) for shoulder reconstruction in brachial plexus injury (BPI) patients with total and C5–8 palsies, and its pulmonary complications. Methods Forty-four out of 127 BPI patients with total and C5–8 palsies who underwent PNT to SSN for shoulder reconstruction were evaluated for functional outcomes in comparison with other types of nerve transfers. Their pulmonary function was analyzed using vital capacity in the percentage of predicted value and Hugh-Jones (HJ) breathless classification. The predisposing factors to develop pulmonary complications in those patients were examined as well. Results PNT to SSN provided a better shoulder range of motion significantly as compared with nerve transfer from C5 root and contralateral C7. The results between PNT and spinal accessory nerve transfer to SSN were comparable in all directions of shoulder motions. There were no significant respiratory symptoms in majority of the patients including six patients who were classified into grade 2 HJ breathlessness grading. Two predisposing factors for poorer pulmonary performance were identified, which were age and body mass index, with cut-off values of younger than 32 years old and less than 23, respectively. Conclusions PNT to SSN can be a reliable reconstructive procedure in restoration of shoulder function in BPI patients with total or C5–8 palsy. The postoperative pulmonary complications can be prevented with vigilant patient selection.

Transfer of a Motor Fascicle From the Ulnar Nerve to the Branch of the Radial Nerve Destined to the Long Head of the Triceps for Restoration of Elbow Extension in Brachial Plexus Surgery

Neurosurgery ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. E516-E520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leandro Pretto Flores
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Ulnar Nerve ◽  
Radial Nerve ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Shoulder Abduction ◽  
Elbow Extension ◽  
Long Head ◽  
Brachial Plexus Surgery

Abstract BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Restoration of elbow extension has not been considered of much importance regarding functional outcomes in brachial plexus surgery; however, the flexion of the elbow joint is only fully effective if the motion can be stabilized, what can be achieved solely if the triceps brachii is coactivated. To present a novel nerve transfer of a healthy motor fascicle from the ulnar nerve to the nerve of the long head of the triceps to restore the elbow extension function in brachial plexus injuries involving the upper and middle trunks. CLINICAL PRESENTATION: Case 1 is a 32-year-old man sustaining a right brachial extended upper plexus injury in a motorcycle accident 5 months before admission. The computed tomography myelogram demonstrated avulsion of the C5 and C6 roots. Case 2 is a 24-year-old man who sustained a C5-C7 injury to the left brachial plexus in a traffic accident 4 months before admission. Computed tomography myelogram demonstrated signs of C6 and C7 root avulsion. The technique included an incision at the medial border of the biceps, in the proximal third of the involved arm, followed by identification of the ulnar nerve, the radial nerve, and the branch to the long head of the triceps. The proximal stump of a motor fascicle from the ulnar nerve was sutured directly to the distal stump of the nerve of the long head of the triceps. Techniques to restore elbow flexion and shoulder abduction were applied in both cases. Triceps strength Medical Research Council M4 grade was obtained in both cases. CONCLUSION: The attempted nerve transfer was effective for restoration of elbow extension in primary brachial plexus surgery; however, it should be selected only for cases in which other reliable donor nerves were used to restore elbow flexion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document