Distal Nerve Transfers: A Perspective on the Future of Reconstructive Microsurgery

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (09) ◽  
pp. 669-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Chuang
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Nerve Graft ◽  
Reconstructive Procedure ◽  
Nerve Reconstruction ◽  
Nerve Grafts ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽  
Distal Nerve

Abstract Background Nerve transfer can be broadly separated into two categories: proximal nerve graft and/or transfer and distal nerve transfer. The superiority of proximal nerve graft/transfer over distal nerve transfer strategy has been debated extensively, but which strategy is the best has not yet been defined. Each technique has its own advantages and disadvantages. However, proximal nerve graft/transfer is still the main reconstructive procedure based on the principle of “no diagnosis, then no treatment.” Proximal nerve transfer can avoid iatrogenic injury where the lesion is still in continuity and neurolysis is the only procedure without further cutting the nerve. Results Our clinical and experimental study show that proximal nerve grafts/transfers yield at least equal or better results compared to distal nerve transfers. Proximal nerve grafts/transfers remain the mainstay of my reconstructive strategy. Proximal nerve graft/transfer offers more accurate diagnosis and proper treatment to restore shoulder and elbow functions simultaneously. Distal nerve transfers can offer more efficient elbow flexion. Conclusion Combined, both strategies in primary nerve reconstruction are especially recommended when there is no healthy or not enough donor nerve available Distal nerve transfers should be considered as a complementary option for proximal nerve grafts/ transfers.

Future Perspectives in the Management of Nerve Injuries

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (09) ◽  
pp. 672-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Mackinnon
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Nerve Repair ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Nerve Graft ◽  
Nerve Injuries ◽  
Nerve Grafts ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Reconstructive Microsurgery

Aim The author presents a solicited “white paper” outlining her perspective on the role of nerve transfers in the management of nerve injuries. Methods PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were evaluated to compare nerve graft and nerve transfer. An evaluation of the scientific literature by review of index articles was also performed to compare the number of overall clinical publications of nerve repair, nerve graft, and nerve transfer. Finally, a survey regarding the prevalence of nerve transfer surgery was administrated to the World Society of Reconstructive Microsurgery (WSRM) results. Results Both nerve graft and transfer can generate functional results and the relative success of graft versus transfer depended on the function to be restored and the specific transfers used. Beginning in the early 1990s, there has been a rapid increase from baseline of nerve transfer publications such that clinical nerve transfer publication now exceeds those of nerve repair or nerve graft. Sixty-two responses were received from WSRM membership. These surgeons reported their frequency of “usually or always using nerve transfers for repairing brachial plexus injuries as 68%, radial nerves as 27%, median as 25%, and ulnar as 33%. They reported using nerve transfers” sometimes for brachial plexus 18%, radial nerve 30%, median nerve 34%, ulnar nerve 35%. Conclusion Taken together this evidence suggests that nerve transfers do offer an alternative technique along with tendon transfers, nerve repair, and nerve grafts.

scholarly journals Distal nerve transfers: a biology-based rationale

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. E12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin M. Brown ◽  
Manish N. Shah ◽  
Susan E. Mackinnon
Keyword(s):  
Cortical Plasticity ◽  
Surgical Repair ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Injuries ◽  
Nerve Grafts ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Common Strategy ◽  
Distal Nerve ◽  
And Function

Peripheral nerve injuries can result in devastating numbness and paralysis. Surgical repair strategies have historically focused on restoring the original anatomy with interposition grafts. Distal nerve transfers are becoming a more common strategy in the repair of nerve deficits as these interventions can restore function in months as opposed to more than a year with nerve grafts. The changes that take place over time in the cell body, distal nerve, and target organ after axotomy can compromise the results of traditional graft placement and may at times be better addressed with the use of distal nerve transfers. A carefully devised nerve transfer offers restoration of function with minimal (if any) detectable deficits at the donor site. A new understanding of cortical plasticity along with patient reeducation allow for good return of strength and function after nerve transfer.

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 Successful Nerve Transfers for Traumatic Brachial Plexus Palsy in a Septuagenarian

Hand ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. NP30-NP33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parker H. Johnsen ◽  
Scott W. Wolfe
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Suprascapular Nerve ◽  
Brachial Plexus Palsy ◽  
Nerve Reconstruction ◽  
Post Injury ◽  
Nerve Transfers

Background: Conventional wisdom and the available literature demonstrate compromised outcomes following nerve reconstruction for traumatic brachial plexus palsy in the elderly. We present a 74-year-old male who was reconstructed with multiple nerve transfers for brachial plexus palsy after a ski accident. Methods: Triceps to axillary nerve transfer, spinal accessory to suprascapular nerve transfer, and ulnar to musculocutaneous nerve transfer were performed 16 weeks post injury. Results: At 11 years post-op, the patient could abduct to 65° and forward flex at M4 strength, limited only by painful glenohumeral arthritis. Elbow flexion was M5- at both the biceps and brachialis, and bulk and tone were nearly symmetrical with the opposite side. Eleven-year electrodiagnostic studies demonstrated reinnervation and improved motor unit recruitment all affected muscles. Conclusion: This case questions the widely held dogma that older patients who undergo brachial plexus reconstruction do poorly. Given the short reinnervation distance and optimal donor nerve health, nerve transfers may be an excellent option for healthy older patients with traumatic brachial plexus palsy.

Elbow Flexion Reconstruction in Brachial Plexus Avulsion Injuries – Results with Intercostal Nerve and Distal Nerve Transfers

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (03) ◽  
pp. 307-314
Author(s):  
Gavrielle Hui-Ying Kang ◽  
Rebecca Qian-Ru Lim ◽  
Fok-Chuan Yong
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Motor Branch ◽  
Entire Cohort ◽  
Brachial Plexus Avulsion ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Distal Nerve

Background: The neural surgical options for reconstruction of elbow flexion in brachial plexus injuries depend on the availability of nerve donors. In upper-type avulsion injuries, the ulnar or median nerves, when intact, are reliable intra-plexal donor nerves for transfers to the biceps muscle. In complete avulsion injuries, donors are limited to extra-plexal sources, such as intercostal nerves (ICNs). Methods: We reviewed our results of ICN and partial distal nerve (ulnar or median) transfers for elbow flexion reconstruction in patients with brachial plexus avulsion injuries. The time taken for recovery of elbow flexion strength to M3 and the final motor outcome at 2 years were compared between both groups. Results: 38 patients were included in this study. 27 had ICN transfers to the musculocutaneous nerve (MCN), 8 had partial ulnar nerve transfers and 3 had partial median nerve transfers to the MCN's biceps motor branch. The mean time interval from injury to surgery was 3.6 months. Recovery of elbow flexion was observed earlier in the distal nerve transfer group (p < 0.05). Overall, success rates were higher in patients with distal nerve transfers (100%), compared to ICN transfers (63%) at 2 years (p = 0.018). Patients with distal nerve transfers achieved a higher final median strength of M4.0 [Interquartile range (IQR) 3.5–4.5], compared to M3.5 (IQR 2.0–4.0) in the ICN group (p = 0.031). In the subgroup of patients with upper-type brachial plexus injuries, there were no significant differences in motor outcomes between the ICN versus distal nerve transfers group. Conclusions: In our entire cohort, patients with distal nerve transfers had faster motor recovery and better elbow flexion power than patients with ICN transfers. In patients with partial brachial plexus injuries, outcomes of ICN transfers were not inferior to distal nerve transfers.

Distal Nerve Transfer: Perspective of Reconstructive Microsurgery

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (09) ◽  
pp. 675-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuteru Doi
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Functional Evaluation ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽  
Distal Nerve

AbstractRecent articles have strongly emphasized the superiority of distal nerve transfers despite indefinite assessment. I would like to introduce the problems associated with functional evaluation following nerve transfers.

Comparison of Surgical Strategies between Proximal Nerve Graft and/or Nerve Transfer and Distal Nerve Transfer Based on Functional Restoration of Elbow Flexion

2018 ◽  
Vol 141 (1) ◽  
pp. 68e-79e ◽  
Author(s):  
Ching-Hsuan Hu ◽  
Tommy Nai-Jen Chang ◽  
Johnny Chuieng-Yi Lu ◽  
Vincent G. Laurence ◽  
David Chwei-Chin Chuang
Keyword(s):  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Nerve Graft ◽  
Functional Restoration ◽  
Surgical Strategies ◽  
Distal Nerve

Nerve Graft Length and Recovery of Elbow Flexion Muscle Strength in Patients With Traumatic Brachial Plexus Injuries: Case Series

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariano Socolovsky ◽  
Gilda di Masi ◽  
Gonzalo Bonilla ◽  
Ana Lovaglio ◽  
Kartik G Krishnan
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Target Function ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Nerve Graft ◽  
Spinal Accessory Nerve ◽  
Accessory Nerve ◽  
Nerve Reconstruction ◽  
Muscle Recovery ◽  
Spinal Accessory

Abstract BACKGROUND Traumatic brachial plexus injuries cause long-term maiming of patients. The major target function to restore in complex brachial plexus injury is elbow flexion. OBJECTIVE To retrospectively analyze the correlation between the length of the nerve graft and the strength of target muscle recovery in extraplexual and intraplexual nerve transfers. METHODS A total of 51 patients with complete or near-complete brachial plexus injuries were treated with a combination of nerve reconstruction strategies. The phrenic nerve (PN) was used as axon donor in 40 patients and the spinal accessory nerve was used in 11 patients. The recipient nerves were the anterior division of the upper trunk (AD), the musculocutaneous nerve (MC), or the biceps branches of the MC (BBs). An index comparing the strength of elbow flexion between the affected and the healthy arms was correlated with the choice of target nerve recipient and the length of nerve grafts, among other parameters. The mean follow-up was 4 yr. RESULTS Neither the choice of MC or BB as a recipient nor the length of the nerve graft showed a strong correlation with the strength of elbow flexion. The choice of very proximal recipient nerve (AD) led to axonal misrouting in 25% of the patients in whom no graft was employed. CONCLUSION The length of the nerve graft is not a negative factor for obtaining good muscle recovery for elbow flexion when using PN or spinal accessory nerve as axon donors in traumatic brachial plexus 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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document