Double nerve transfer to a single target muscle: experimental model in the upper extremity

Surgical nerve transfers are used to efficiently treat peripheral nerve injuries, neuromas, phantom limb pain or improve bionic prosthetic control. Commonly, one donor nerve is transferred to one target muscle. However, the transfer of multiple nerves onto a single target muscle may increase the number of muscle signals for myoelectric prosthetic control and facilitate the treatment of multiple neuromas. Currently, no experimental models are available for multiple nerve transfers to a common target muscle in the upper extremity. This study describes a novel experimental model to investigate the neurophysiological effects of peripheral double nerve transfers. For this purpose, we developed a forelimb model to enable tension-free transfer of one or two donor nerves in the upper extremity. Anatomic dissections were performed to design the double nerve transfer model (n=8). In 62 male Sprague-Dawley rats the ulnar nerve of the antebrachium alone (n=30) or together with the anterior interosseus nerve (n=32) was transferred to reinnervate the long head of the biceps brachii. Before neurotization, the motor branch to the biceps' long head was transected at the motor entry point and resected up to its original branch to prevent auto-reinnervation. In all animals, coaptation of both nerves to the motor entry point could be performed tension-free. Mean duration of the procedure was 49 ± 13 min for the single nerve transfer and 78 ± 20 min for the double nerve transfer. Twelve weeks after surgery, muscle response to neurotomy, behavioral testing, retrograde labeling and structural analyses were performed to assess reinnervation. These analyses indicated that all nerves successfully reinnervated the target muscle. No aberrant reinnervation was observed by the originally innervating nerve. Our observations suggest a minimal burden for the animal with no signs of functional deficit in daily activities or auto-mutilation in both procedures. Furthermore, standard neurophysiological analyses for nerve and muscle regeneration were applicable. This newly developed nerve transfer model allows for the reliable and standardized investigation of neural and functional changes following the transfer of multiple donor nerves to one target muscle.

Download Full-text

Proof of concept for multiple nerve transfers to a single target muscle

eLife ◽

10.7554/elife.71312 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 ◽

Author(s):

Matthias Luft ◽

Johanna Klepetko ◽

Silvia Muceli ◽

Jaime Ibáñez ◽

Vlad Tereshenko ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Upper Extremity ◽

Nerve Transfer ◽

Entry Point ◽

Transfer Model ◽

Prosthetic Control ◽

Tension Free ◽

Nerve Transfers ◽

Single Target ◽

Motor Entry Point ◽

Long Head

Surgical nerve transfers are used to efficiently treat peripheral nerve injuries, neuromas, phantom limb pain or improve bionic prosthetic control. Commonly, one donor nerve is transferred to one target muscle. However, the transfer of multiple nerves onto a single target muscle may increase the number of muscle signals for myoelectric prosthetic control and facilitate the treatment of multiple neuromas. Currently, no experimental models are available for multiple nerve transfers to a common target muscle in the upper extremity. This study describes a novel experimental model to investigate the neurophysiological effects of peripheral double nerve transfers. For this purpose, we developed a forelimb model to enable tension-free transfer of one or two donor nerves in the upper extremity. Anatomic dissections were performed to design the double nerve transfer model (n=8). In 62 male Sprague-Dawley rats the ulnar nerve of the antebrachium alone (n=30) or together with the anterior interosseus nerve (n=32) was transferred to reinnervate the long head of the biceps brachii. Before neurotization, the motor branch to the biceps’ long head was transected at the motor entry point and resected up to its original branch to prevent auto-reinnervation. In all animals, coaptation of both nerves to the motor entry point could be performed tension-free. Mean duration of the procedure was 49 ± 13 min for the single nerve transfer and 78 ± 20 min for the double nerve transfer. Twelve weeks after surgery, muscle response to neurotomy, behavioral testing, retrograde labeling and structural analyses were performed to assess reinnervation. These analyses indicated that all nerves successfully reinnervated the target muscle. No aberrant reinnervation was observed by the originally innervating nerve. Our observations suggest a minimal burden for the animal with no signs of functional deficit in daily activities or auto-mutilation in both procedures. Furthermore, standard neurophysiological analyses for nerve and muscle regeneration were applicable. This newly developed nerve transfer model allows for the reliable and standardized investigation of neural and functional changes following the transfer of multiple donor nerves to one target muscle.

Download Full-text

Nerve transfers in the upper extremity following cervical spinal cord injury. Part 1: Systematic review of the literature

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2019.4.spine19173 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 31 (5) ◽

pp. 629-640 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Jawad M. Khalifeh ◽

Christopher F. Dibble ◽

Anna Van Voorhis ◽

Michelle Doering ◽

Martin I. Boyer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Cervical Spinal Cord ◽

Motor Nerve ◽

Nerve Transfer ◽

Elbow Extension ◽

Nerve Transfers ◽

Finger Extension ◽

Cord Injury ◽

Upper Extremity Function

OBJECTIVEPatients with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI)/tetraplegia consistently rank restoring arm and hand function as their top functional priority to improve quality of life. Motor nerve transfers traditionally used to treat peripheral nerve injuries are increasingly being used to treat patients with cervical SCIs. In this study, the authors performed a systematic review summarizing the published literature on nerve transfers to restore upper-extremity function in tetraplegia.METHODSA systematic literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE 1946–, Embase 1947–, Scopus 1960–, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant literature published through January 2019. The authors included studies that provided original patient-level data and extracted information on clinical characteristics, operative details, and strength outcomes after nerve transfer procedures. Critical review and synthesis of the articles were performed.RESULTSTwenty-two unique studies, reporting on 158 nerve transfers in 118 upper limbs of 92 patients (87 males, 94.6%) were included in the systematic review. The mean duration from SCI to nerve transfer surgery was 18.7 months (range 4 months–13 years) and mean postoperative follow-up duration was 19.5 months (range 1 month–4 years). The main goals of reinnervation were the restoration of thumb and finger flexion, elbow extension, and wrist and finger extension. Significant heterogeneity in transfer strategy and postoperative outcomes were noted among the reports. All but one case report demonstrated recovery of at least Medical Research Council grade 3/5 strength in recipient muscle groups; however, there was greater variation in the results of larger case series. The best, most consistent outcomes were demonstrated for restoration of wrist/finger extension and elbow extension.CONCLUSIONSMotor nerve transfers are a promising treatment option to restore upper-extremity function after SCI. Flexor reinnervation strategies show variable treatment effect sizes; however, extensor reinnervation may provide more consistent, meaningful recovery. Despite numerous published case reports describing good patient outcomes with nerve transfers, there remains a paucity in the literature regarding optimal timing and long-term clinical outcomes with these procedures.

Download Full-text

Impact of Body Mass Index and Comorbidities on Outcomes in Upper Extremity Nerve Transfers

Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽

10.1055/s-0041-1726030 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Linden K. Head ◽

Maria C. Médor ◽

Aneesh Karir ◽

Gerald Wolff ◽

Kirsty U. Boyd

Keyword(s):

Body Mass Index ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Body Mass ◽

Retrospective Cohort Study ◽

Retrospective Cohort ◽

Nerve Transfer ◽

Nerve Transfers ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background There is a paucity of research investigating the impact of patient comorbidities, such as obesity and smoking, on nerve transfer outcomes. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the impact of body mass index (BMI) and comorbidities on the clinical outcomes of upper extremity nerve transfers. Methods A retrospective cohort study was executed. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had an upper extremity nerve transfer with a minimum of 12-months follow-up. Data was collected regarding demographics, comorbidities, injury etiology, nerve transfer, as well as preoperative and postoperative clinical assessments. The primary outcome measure was strength of the recipient nerve innervated musculature. Statistical analysis used the Mann-Whitney U test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and Spearman's rho. Results Thirty-eight patients undergoing 43 nerve transfers were eligible for inclusion. Patients had a mean age of 48.8 years and a mean BMI of 27.4 kg/m2 (range:19.7–39.0). Injuries involved the brachial plexus (32%) or its terminal branches (68%) with the most common etiologies including trauma (50%) and compression (26%). Anterior interosseous nerve to ulnar motor nerve (35%) was the most common transfer performed. With a mean follow-up of 20.1 months, increased BMI (p = 0.036) and smoking (p = 0.021) were associated with worse postoperative strength. Conclusion This retrospective cohort study demonstrated that increased BMI and smoking may be associated with worse outcomes in upper extremity nerve transfers—review of the literature yields ambiguity in both regards. To facilitate appropriate patient selection and guide expectations regarding prognosis, further experimental and clinical work is warranted.

Download Full-text

Axillary nerve repair by triceps motor branch transfer through an axillary access: anatomical basis and clinical results

Journal of Neurosurgery ◽

10.3171/jns-07/08/0370 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 107 (2) ◽

pp. 370-377 ◽

Cited By ~ 59

Author(s):

Jayme Augusto Bertelli ◽

Paulo Roberto Kechele ◽

Marcos Antonio Santos ◽

Hamilton Duarte ◽

Marcos Flávio Ghizoni

Keyword(s):

Motor Nerve ◽

Nerve Repair ◽

Nerve Transfer ◽

Clinical Results ◽

Axillary Nerve ◽

Surgical Anatomy ◽

Motor Branch ◽

Nerve Transfers ◽

Anatomical Basis ◽

Long Head

Object Grafting or nerve transfers to the axillary nerve have been performed using a deltopectoral approach and/or a posterior arm approach. In this report, the surgical anatomy of the axillary nerve was studied with the goal of repairing the nerve through an axillary access. Methods The axillary nerve was bilaterally dissected in 10 embalmed cadavers to study its variations. Three patients with axillary nerve injuries then underwent surgical repair through an axillary access; the axillary nerve was repaired by transfer of the triceps long head motor branch. Results At the lateral margin of the subscapularis muscle, the axillary nerve was found in the center of a triangle bounded medially by the subscapular artery, laterally by the latissimus dorsi tendon, and cephalad by the posterior circumflex humeral artery. At the entrance of the quadrangular space, the axillary nerve divisions were loosely connected to each other, and could be clearly separated and correctly identified. Surgery for the axillary nerve repair through the axillary access was straightforward. Eighteen months after surgery, all three patients had recovered deltoid strength to a score of M4 on the Medical Research Council scale and had improved abduction strength by 50%. No deficit was evident in elbow extension. Conclusions The axillary nerve and its branches can be safely dissected and repaired by triceps motor nerve transfer through an axillary access.

Download Full-text

Triceps Motor Nerve Branches as a Donor or Receiver in Nerve Transfers

Operative Neurosurgery ◽

10.1227/01.neu.0000303991.80364.56 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 61 (suppl_5) ◽

pp. ONS333-ONS339 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

Author(s):

Jayme A. Bertelli ◽

Marcos A. Santos ◽

Paulo R. Kechele ◽

Marcos F. Ghizoni ◽

Hamilton Duarte

Keyword(s):

Radial Nerve ◽

Latissimus Dorsi ◽

Motor Nerve ◽

Nerve Transfer ◽

Motor Branch ◽

Medial Head ◽

Nerve Transfers ◽

Axillary Region ◽

Long Head ◽

Lateral Head

AbstractObjective:The pattern of triceps innervation is complex and, as yet, has not been fully elucidated. The purposes of this study were 1) to clarify the anatomy of the triceps motor branches, and 2) to evaluate their possible uses as a donor or receiver for nerve transfer.Methods:The radial nerve and its motor and cutaneous branches were bilaterally dissected from the axilla and posterior arm regions of 10 embalmed cadavers.Results:A single branch innervates the triceps long head, whereas double innervation was identified for the lateral and medial heads. The upper branch to the lateral head originated from the radial nerve, whereas the lower branch to the lateral head stemmed from the lower medial head motor branch, which ultimately innervated the anconeus muscle. Both the long head and the upper medial head motor branches originated in the axillary region in the vicinity of the latissimus dorsi tendon.Conclusion:Each of the triceps’ motor branches might be used as a donor for transfer. The triceps long head motor branch should be used preferentially when the intention is to establish triceps reinnervation.

Download Full-text

Nerve graft versus nerve transfer for neonatal brachial plexus: shoulder outcomes

Journal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics ◽

10.3171/2020.6.peds2027 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 27 (1) ◽

pp. 87-92

Author(s):

Brandon W. Smith ◽

Kate W. C. Chang ◽

Sravanthi Koduri ◽

Lynda J. S. Yang

Keyword(s):

Brachial Plexus ◽

Clinical Data ◽

External Rotation ◽

Nerve Transfer ◽

Shoulder Function ◽

Nerve Transfers ◽

Shoulder Flexion ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Transfer Strategies ◽

Shoulder External Rotation

OBJECTIVEThe decision-making in neonatal brachial plexus palsy (NBPP) treatment continues to have many areas in need of clarification. Graft repair was the gold standard until the introduction of nerve transfer strategies. Currently, there is conflicting evidence regarding outcomes in patients with nerve grafts versus nerve transfers in relation to shoulder function. The objective of this study was to further define the outcomes for reconstruction strategies in NBPP with a specific focus on the shoulder.METHODSA cohort of patients with NBPP and surgical repairs from a single center were reviewed. Demographic and standard clinical data, including imaging and electrodiagnostics, were gathered from a clinical database. Clinical data from physical therapy evaluations, including active and passive range of motion, were examined. Statistical analysis was performed on the available data.RESULTSForty-five patients met the inclusion criteria for this study, 19 with graft repair and 26 with nerve transfers. There were no significant differences in demographics between the two groups. Understandably, there were no patients in the nerve grafting group with preganglionic lesions, resulting in a difference in lesion type between the cohorts. There were no differences in preoperative shoulder function between the cohorts. Both groups reached statistically significant improvements in shoulder flexion and shoulder abduction. The nerve transfer group experienced a significant improvement in shoulder external rotation, from −78° to −28° (p = 0.0001), whereas a significant difference was not reached in the graft group. When compared between groups, there appeared to be a trend favoring nerve transfer in shoulder external rotation, with the graft patients improving by 17° and the transfer patients improving by 49° (p = 0.07).CONCLUSIONSIn NBPP, patients with shoulder weakness experience statistically significant improvements in shoulder flexion and abduction after graft repair or nerve transfer, and patients with nerve transfers additionally experience significant improvement in external rotation. With regard to shoulder external rotation, there appear to be some data supporting the use of nerve transfers.

Download Full-text

Radial Nerve Palsy: Nerve Transfer Versus Tendon Transfer to Restore Function

Hand ◽

10.1177/1558944720988126 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 155894472098812

Author(s):

J. Megan M. Patterson ◽

Stephanie A. Russo ◽

Madi El-Haj ◽

Christine B. Novak ◽

Susan E. Mackinnon

Keyword(s):

Radial Nerve ◽

Tendon Transfer ◽

Nerve Palsy ◽

Nerve Transfer ◽

Pinch Strength ◽

Radial Nerve Palsy ◽

Nerve Injuries ◽

Tendon Transfers ◽

Nerve Transfers ◽

Transfer Group

Background: Radial nerve injuries cause profound disability, and a variety of reconstruction options exist. This study aimed to compare outcomes of tendon transfers versus nerve transfers for the management of isolated radial nerve injuries. Methods: A retrospective chart review of 30 patients with isolated radial nerve injuries treated with tendon transfers and 16 patients managed with nerve transfers was performed. Fifteen of the 16 patients treated with nerve transfer had concomitant pronator teres to extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon transfer for wrist extension. Preoperative and postoperative strength data, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores, and quality-of-life (QOL) scores were compared before and after surgery and compared between groups. Results: For the nerve transfer group, patients were significantly younger, time from injury to surgery was significantly shorter, and follow-up time was significantly longer. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in grip and pinch strength after surgery. Postoperative grip strength was significantly higher in the nerve transfer group. Postoperative pinch strength did not differ between groups. Similarly, both groups showed an improvement in DASH and QOL scores after surgery with no significant differences between the 2 groups. Conclusions: The nerve transfer group demonstrated greater grip strength, but both groups had improved pain, function, and satisfaction postoperatively. Patients who present early and can tolerate longer time to functional recovery would be optimal candidates for nerve transfers. Both tendon transfers and nerve transfers are good options for patients with radial nerve palsy.

Download Full-text

FREE VASCULARIZED NERVE TRANSFER IN THE UPPER EXTREMITY

Hand Clinics ◽

10.1016/s0749-0712(21)00487-x ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 15 (4) ◽

pp. 673-695

Author(s):

G. Ian Taylor

Keyword(s):

Upper Extremity ◽

Nerve Transfer

Download Full-text

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 ◽

10.1227/neu.0b013e31822ac120 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 70 (2) ◽

pp. E516-E520 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

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.

Download Full-text