scholarly journals Nerve Transfers for Restoring Elbow Flexion in Brachial Plexus Palsy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teodor Stamate ◽  
Dan Cristian Moraru
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Phrenic Nerve ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Distal Stump ◽  
Brachial Plexus Palsy ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Pectoral Nerve ◽  
Intercostal Nerves ◽  
Thoracodorsal Nerve

Nerve transfers (NT) consist in sectioning a donor nerve and connecting it to the distal stump of a recipient unrepairable nerve. For elbow flexion restoration in brachial plexus palsy (BPP) we used different NT: 1) GF motor Ulnar Nerve to Biceps nerve (Oberlin technique), 2) Double fascicular median/ulnar to biceps/brachialis nerve transfer (Mackinnon), 3) InterCostal Nerves (ICN) to MCN (+/− nerve graft), 4) Medial Pectoral Nerve (MPN) to MCN, 5) ThoracoDorsal Nerve (TDN) to MCN, 6) Spinal Accessory Nerve (SAN) to MCN transfer, 7) Phrenic Nerve (PhN) to MCN, 8) Cervical Plexus C3-C4 to MCN and 9) Contralateral C7 (CC7). I want to present my personal experience using the phrenic nerve (PhN), the intercostal nerves (ICN) and Oberlin’s technique. The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the results of this procedure in BPP. NT is an important goal in BPP. ICN transfer into the nerve of biceps for elbow flexion recovery is a reliable procedure in BPP. ICN transfer for triceps offers a positive alternative (Carroll transposition). Oberlin technique is simple and offers better results in a shorter amount of time and is an effective and safe option.

Transfer of Pectoral Nerves to the Musculocutaneous Nerve in Obstetric Upper Brachial Plexus Palsy

Neurosurgery ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 338-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard Blaauw ◽  
Albert C.J. Slooff
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Musculocutaneous Nerve ◽  
Nerve Endings ◽  
Nerve Plexus ◽  
Brachial Plexus Palsy ◽  
Pectoral Nerve

Abstract OBJECTIVE To investigate the results of transfer of pectoral nerves to the musculocutaneous nerve for treatment of obstetric brachial palsy. METHODS In 25 cases of obstetric brachial palsy (20 after breech deliveries), branches of the pectoral nerve plexus were transferred directly to the musculocutaneous nerve. For all patients, the nerve transfer was part of an extended brachial plexus reconstruction. Results were tested both clinically and with the Mallet scale, at a mean follow-up time of 70 months (standard deviation, 34.3 mo). RESULTS There were two complete failures, which were attributable to disconnection of the transferred nerve endings. The results after transfer were excellent in 17 cases and fair in 5 cases. Steindler flexorplasty improved elbow flexion for three patients. CONCLUSION Transfer of pectoral nerves to the musculocutaneous nerve for treatment of obstetric upper brachial palsy may be effective, if the specific anatomic features of the pectoral nerve plexus are sufficiently appreciated.

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.

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.

Comparison Between Supraclavicular Versus Video-Assisted Intrathoracic Phrenic Nerve Section for Transfer in Patients With Traumatic Brachial Plexus Injuries: Case Series

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-254
Author(s):  
Mariano Socolovsky ◽  
Marcio de Mendonça Cardoso ◽  
Ana Lovaglio ◽  
Gilda di Masi ◽  
Gonzalo Bonilla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Phrenic Nerve ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Nerve Section ◽  
Video Assisted ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Flexion Strength

Abstract BACKGROUND The phrenic nerve has been extensively reported to be a very powerful source of transferable axons in brachial plexus injuries. The most used technique used is supraclavicular sectioning of this nerve. More recently, video-assisted thoracoscopic techniques have been reported as a good alternative, since harvesting a longer phrenic nerve avoids the need of an interposed graft. OBJECTIVE To compare grafting vs phrenic nerve transfer via thoracoscopy with respect to mean elbow strength at final follow-up. METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted among patients who underwent phrenic nerve transfer for elbow flexion at 2 centers from 2008 to 2017. All data analysis was performed in order to determine statistical significance among the analyzed variables. RESULTS A total of 32 patients underwent supraclavicular phrenic nerve transfer, while 28 underwent phrenic nerve transfer via video-assisted thoracoscopy. Demographic characteristics were similar in both groups. A statistically significant difference in elbow flexion strength recovery was observed, favoring the supraclavicular phrenic nerve section group against the intrathoracic group (P = .036). A moderate though nonsignificant difference was observed favoring the same group in mean elbow flexion strength. Also, statistical differences included patient age (P = .01) and earlier time from trauma to surgery (P = .069). CONCLUSION Comparing supraclavicular sectioning of the nerve vs video-assisted, intrathoracic nerve sectioning to restore elbow flexion showed that the former yielded statistically better results than the latter, in terms of the percentage of patients who achieve at least level 3 MRC strength at final follow-up. Furthermore, larger scale prospective studies assessing the long-term effects of phrenic nerve transfers remain necessary.

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

Long-term Observation of Respiratory Function After Unilateral Phrenic Nerve and Multiple Intercostal Nerve Transfer for Avulsed Brachial Plexus Injury

Neurosurgery ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 796-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mou-Xiong Zheng ◽  
Yan-Qun Qiu ◽  
Wen-Dong Xu ◽  
Jian-Guang Xu
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Function ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Phrenic Nerve ◽  
Respiratory Function ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Intercostal Nerve ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Intercostal Nerves

Abstract BACKGROUND: Phrenic nerve transfer (PNT) or multiple intercostal nerve transfer (MIT) alone are reported to have no significant impact on pulmonary function in the short or medium term, but it has rarely been reported whether the combination of PNT-MIT could influence respiratory function in the long term. OBJECTIVE: Respiratory function was evaluated after PNT and PNT-MIT 7 to 19 years (mean, 10 years) postoperatively. METHODS: Twenty-three adult patients with brachial plexus avulsion injuries who underwent PNT-MIT were compared with 19 corresponding patients who underwent PNT. Pulmonary function testings, phrenic nerve conduction study, and chest fluoroscopy were performed. In the PNT-MIT group, further investigation was performed on the effect of the number of transferred intercostal nerves and the timing of MIT. RESULTS: In the PNT-MIT group, forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in one second, and total lung capacity were 73.69%, 72.04%, and 74.81% of predicted values without significant differences from the PNT group. Diaphragmatic paralysis permanently existed with 1 to 1.5 intercostal spaces (ICSs) elevation and near 1 ICS reduced excursion. There was no statistical difference between the PNT and PNT-MIT groups. Furthermore, 3 and 4 intercostal nerves transferred resulted in no further decrease in pulmonary function test results than 2 intercostal nerves. No significant difference was found when PNT and MIT were performed at the same stage or with an interval. CONCLUSION: PNT-MIT did not result in additional impairment in respiratory function in adult patients compared with PNT alone. It is safe to transfer 2 to 4 intercostal nerves at 1 to 2 months delay after PNT.

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.

scholarly journals Rectus Abdominis Motor Nerves as Donor Option for Free Functional Muscle Transfer: A Cadaver Study and Case Series

Hand ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron B. Mull ◽  
Michael C. Nicoson ◽  
Amy M. Moore ◽  
Dan A. Hunter ◽  
Thomas H. Tung
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Rectus Abdominis ◽  
Muscle Transfer ◽  
Pectoral Nerve ◽  
Muscle Transfers ◽  
Motor Nerves ◽  
Intercostal Nerves ◽  
Functional Muscle Transfer

Background: Current management of brachial plexus injuries includes nerve grafts and nerve transfers. However, in cases of late presentation or pan plexus injuries, free functional muscle transfers are an option to restore function. The purpose of our study was to describe and evaluate the rectus abdominis motor nerves histomorphologically and functionally as a donor nerve option for free functional muscle transfer for the reconstruction of brachial plexus injuries. Methods: High intercostal, rectus abdominis, thoracodorsal, and medial pectoral nerves were harvested for histomorphometric analysis from 4 cadavers from levels T3-8. A retrospective chart review was performed of all free functional muscle transfers from 2001 to 2014 by a single surgeon. Results: Rectus abdominis nerve branches provide a significant quantity of motor axons compared with high intercostal nerves and are comparable to the anterior branch of the thoracodorsal nerve and medial pectoral nerve branches. Clinically, the average recovery of elbow flexion was comparable to conventional donors for 2-stage muscle transfer. Conclusion: Rectus abdominis motor nerves have similar nerve counts to thoracodorsal, medial pectoral nerves, and significantly more than high intercostal nerves alone. The use of rectus abdominis motor nerve branches allows restoration of elbow flexion comparable to other standard donors. In cases where multiple high intercostal nerves are not available as donors (rib fractures, phrenic nerve injury), rectus abdominis nerves provide a potential option for motor reconstruction without adversely affecting respiration.

Simultaneous Phrenic and Intercostal Nerves Transfer for Elbow Flexion and Extension in Total Brachial Plexus Root Avulsion Injury

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (04) ◽  
pp. 496-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanchai Malungpaishope ◽  
Somsak Leechavengvongs ◽  
Patamaporn Ratchawatana ◽  
Akaradech Pitakveerakul ◽  
Sarun Jindahara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phrenic Nerve ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Root Avulsion ◽  
Trunk Flexion ◽  
Simultaneous Transfer ◽  
Long Head ◽  
Intercostal Nerves ◽  
Brachial Root Avulsion ◽  
Flexion And Extension

Background: To report the results of restoring the elbow flexion and extension in patients with total brachial root avulsion injuries by simultaneous transfer of the phrenic nerve to the nerve to the biceps and three intercostal nerves to the nerve of the long head of the triceps. Methods: Ten patients with total brachial root avulsion injuries underwent the spinal accessory nerve transfer to the suprascapular nerve for shoulder reconstruction. Simultaneous transfer of the phrenic nerve to the nerve to the biceps via the sural nerve graft and three intercostal nerves to the nerve of the long head of the triceps was done for restoration of the elbow flexion and extension. Trunk flexion exercise program was used for all patients postoperatively. The mean follow up period was 36 months. Results: For elbow flexion, there were two M4, seven M3, and one M1. For elbow extension, there were three M4, four M3, two M2, and one M1. No patient demonstrated a respiratory problem clinically postoperatively. The average FVC% decreased to 61% of the predicted value at 24 months after surgery. Conclusions: The simultaneous nerve transfer using the phrenic nerve to the nerve to the biceps and 3 intercostal nerves to the nerve of the long head of the triceps with postoperative trunk flexion exercise provide a comparable result for restoration of elbow function in total brachial plexus root avulsion injury. The patients who appear to have a respiratory problem and are unable to comply with the post-operative respiratory muscles training should be contraindicated for this simultaneous transfer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document