Surgical repair of brachial plexus injury: a multinational survey of experienced peripheral nerve surgeons

2004 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan J. Belzberg ◽  
Michael J. Dorsi ◽  
Phillip B. Storm ◽  
John L. Moriarity
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Surgical Intervention ◽  
Nerve Repair ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Shoulder Abduction ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
The Many

Background Brachial plexus injuries (BPIs) are often devastating events that lead to upper-extremity paralysis, rendering it a painful extraneous appendage. Fortunately, there are several nerve repair techniques that provide restoration of some function. Although there is general agreement in the medical community concerning which patients may benefit from surgical intervention, the actual repair technique for a given lesion is less clear. Object The authors sought to identify and better define areas of agreement and disagreement among experienced peripheral nerve surgeons regarding the management of BPIs. Methods The authors developed a detailed survey in two parts: one part addressing general issues related to BPI and the other presenting four clinical cases. The survey was mailed to 126 experienced peripheral nerve physicians of whom 49 (39%) participated in the study. The respondents represented 22 countries and multiple surgical subspecialties. They performed a mean of 34 brachial plexus reconstructions annually. Areas of significant disagreement included the timing and indications for surgical intervention in birth-related palsy, management of neuroma-in-continuity, the best transfers to achieve elbow flexion and shoulder abduction, the use of intra- or extraplexal donors for motor neurotization, and the use of distal compared with proximal coaptation during nerve transfer. Conclusions Experienced peripheral nerve surgeons disagreed in important respects as to the management of BPI. The decisions made by the various treating physicians underscored the many areas of disagreement regarding the treatment of BPI including the diagnostic approach to defining the injury, timing of and indications for surgical intervention in birth-related palsy, management of neuroma-in-continuity, choice of nerve transfers to achieve elbow flexion and shoulder abduction, use of intra- or extraplexal donors for neurotization, and the use of distal or proximal coaptation during nerve transfer.

Surgical repair of brachial plexus injury: a multinational survey of experienced peripheral nerve surgeons

2004 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan J. Belzberg ◽  
Michael J. Dorsi ◽  
Phillip B. Storm ◽  
John L. Moriarity
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Surgical Intervention ◽  
Nerve Repair ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Shoulder Abduction ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fine Print

Object. Brachial plexus injuries (BPIs) are often devastating events that lead to upper-extremity paralysis, rendering the limb a painful extraneous appendage. Fortunately, there are several nerve repair techniques that provide restoration of some function. Although there is general agreement in the medical community concerning which patients may benefit from surgical intervention, the actual repair technique for a given lesion is less clear. The authors sought to identify and better define areas of agreement and disagreement among experienced peripheral nerve surgeons as to the management of BPIs. Methods. The authors developed a detailed survey in two parts: one part addressing general issues related to BPI and the other presenting four clinical cases. The survey was mailed to 126 experienced peripheral nerve physicians and 49 (39%) participated in the study. The respondents represent 22 different countries and multiple surgical subspecialties. They performed a mean of 33 brachial plexus reconstructions annually. Areas of significant disagreement included the timing and indications for surgical intervention in birth-related palsy, treatment of neuroma-in-continuity, the best transfers to achieve elbow flexion and shoulder abduction, the use of intra- or extraplexal donors for motor neurotization, and the use of distal or proximal coaptation during nerve transfer. Conclusions. Experienced peripheral nerve surgeons disagree in important ways as to the management of BPI. The decisions made by the various treating physicians underscore the many areas of disagreement regarding the treatment of BPI, including the diagnostic approach to defining the injury, timing of and indications for surgical intervention in birth-related palsy, the treatment of neuroma-in-continuity, the choice of nerve transfers to achieve elbow flexion and shoulder abduction, the use of intra- or extraplexal donors for neurotization, and the use of distal or proximal coaptation during nerve transfer.

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.

NERVE TRANSFER SURGERY FOR ADULT BRACHIAL PLEXUS INJURY

Neurosurgery ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 65 (suppl_4) ◽  
pp. A55-A62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olawale A.R. Sulaiman ◽  
Daniel D. Kim ◽  
Clint Burkett ◽  
David G. Kline
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Research Council ◽  
Medical Research Council ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Shoulder Abduction ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Direct Repair ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract OBJECTIVE To review the clinical outcomes in our patients who have undergone nerve transfer operations for brachial plexus reconstruction at the Louisiana State University (LSU) over a 10-year period. A secondary objective is to compare clinical outcomes in patients who had only nerve transfer operations as compared with patients whose nerve transfers were supplemented with direct repair of brachial plexus elements. METHODS Retrospective review of the medical records, imaging, and electrodiagnostic studies (electromyographic and nerve conduction studies) of patients with brachial plexus injuries who underwent nerve transfer operations at LSU over a period of 10 years. RESULTS A total of 81 patients were treated between 1995 to 2005 at the LSU Health Sciences Center; 7 of these patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 74 patients, with an average follow-up of 3.5 years, for review. We evaluated recovery of elbow flexion and shoulder abduction. Ninety percent of patients with medial pectoral to musculocutaneous nerve transfers recovered to LSU grade 2 (Medical Research Council grade 3), and 60% of those patients with intercostal to musculocutaneous nerve transfer regained similar strength in elbow flexion. Shoulder abduction recovery to LSU grade 2 (Medical Research Council grade 3) after spinal accessory to suprascapular and/or thoracodorsal to axillary nerve transfer, was 95% and 36%, respectively. There was a tendency for better motor recovery when nerve transfer operations were combined with direct repair of plexus elements. CONCLUSION Nerve transfers for repair of brachial plexus injuries result in excellent recovery of elbow and shoulder functions. Patients who had direct repair of brachial plexus elements in addition to nerve transfers tended to do better than those who had only nerve transfer operations.

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.

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.

The Double Fascicular Nerve Transfer for Restoration of Elbow Flexion

2011 ◽  
Vol 68 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. ons64-ons67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles P Toussaint ◽  
Eric L Zager
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Nerve Repair ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Musculocutaneous Nerve ◽  
Shoulder Abduction ◽  
Biceps Muscle ◽  
Shoulder Stabilization ◽  
Brachialis Muscle ◽  
Nerve Fascicle

Abstract BACKGROUND: Injuries to the upper trunk of the brachial plexus are debilitating, affecting primarily shoulder abduction and elbow flexion. Treatment is aimed at restoring shoulder stabilization, shoulder abduction, and elbow flexion and may be accomplished by nerve grafting, nerve transfer, or functional muscular transfer. OBJECTIVE: To describe the double fascicular nerve transfer with the goal of restoring elbow flexion. METHODS: The double fascicular nerve transfer involves transferring an ulnar nerve fascicle to the musculocutaneous nerve innervating the biceps muscle and a median nerve fascicle transfer to a branch of musculocutaneous nerve supplying the brachialis muscle. RESULTS: The double fascicular nerve transfer is effective in restoring elbow flexion after severe upper-trunk brachial plexus injuries. CONCLUSION: Advantages of this procedure are that the nerve repair is done very close to the target muscle for reinnervation, so time to reinnervation is minimized, and the surgery takes place distal to the site of injury in nontraumatized tissue.

Nerve transfers for peripheral nerve injury in the upper limb

2019 ◽  
Vol 101-B (2) ◽  
pp. 124-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Isaacs ◽  
A. R. Cochran
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Nerve Injury ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Nerve Repair ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Axillary Nerve ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Sensory Recovery ◽  
Potential Benefits

Nerve transfer has become a common and often effective reconstructive strategy for proximal and complex peripheral nerve injuries of the upper limb. This case-based discussion explores the principles and potential benefits of nerve transfer surgery and offers in-depth discussion of several established and valuable techniques including: motor transfer for elbow flexion after musculocutaneous nerve injury, deltoid reanimation for axillary nerve palsy, intrinsic re-innervation following proximal ulnar nerve repair, and critical sensory recovery despite non-reconstructable median nerve lesions.

Multiple nerve transfers for the reanimation of shoulder and elbow functions in irreparable C5, C6 and upper truncal lesions of the brachial plexus

2008 ◽  
Vol 05 (02) ◽  
pp. 95-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
PS Bhandari ◽  
LP Sadhotra ◽  
P Bhargava ◽  
AS Bath ◽  
MK Mukherjee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Suprascapular Nerve ◽  
Shoulder Function ◽  
Spinal Nerve ◽  
Shoulder Abduction ◽  
Nerve Branch ◽  
Nerve Transfers

AbstractIn irreparable C5, C6 spinal nerve and upper truncal injuries the proximal root stumps are not available for grafting, hence repair is based on nerve transfer or neurotization. Between Feb 2004 and May 2006, 23 patients with irreparable C5, C6 or upper truncal injuries of the Brachial Plexus underwent multiple nerve transfers to restore the shoulder and elbow functions. Most of them (16 patients) sustained injury following motor cycle accidents. The average denervation period was 5.3 months. Shoulder function was restored by transfer of distal part of spinal accessory nerve to suprascapular nerve, and transfer of radial nerve branch to long head of triceps to the anterior branch of axillary nerve. Elbow function was restored by transfers of ulnar and median nerve fascicles to the biceps and brachialis motor branches of musculocutaneous nerve. All patients recovered shoulder abduction and external rotation; 7 scored M4 and 16 scored M3. Range of abduction averaged 1230(range, 800-1700). Full elbow flexion was restored in all 23 patients; 15 scored M4 and 8 scored M3. Patients with excellent results could lift 5 kgs of weight. Selective nerve transfers close to the target muscle provide an early and good return of functions. There is negligible morbidity in donor nerves. These intraplexal transfers are suitable in all cases of upper brachial plexus injuries.

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.

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