Outcomes of Surgical Treatment of Brachial Plexus Injuries Using Nerve Grafting and Nerve Transfers

2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 007-016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarek Abdalla El-Gammal ◽  
Nihal Ahmed Fathi
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Nerve Grafting ◽  
Nerve Transfers

Trends in Brachial Plexus Surgery: Characterizing Contemporary Practices for Exploration of Supraclavicular Plexus

Hand ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 155894472110146
Author(s):  
J. Ryan Hill ◽  
Steven T. Lanier ◽  
Liz Rolf ◽  
Aimee S. James ◽  
David M. Brogan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Technical Difficulty ◽  
Nerve Grafting ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Lower Trunk ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Case Vignettes ◽  
Distal Nerve

Background There is variability in treatment strategies for patients with brachial plexus injury (BPI). We used qualitative research methods to better understand surgeons’ rationale for treatment approaches. We hypothesized that distal nerve transfers would be preferred over exploration and nerve grafting of the brachial plexus. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with BPI surgeons to discuss 3 case vignettes: pan-plexus injury, upper trunk injury, and lower trunk injury. The interview guide included questions regarding overall treatment strategy, indications and utility of brachial plexus exploration, and the role of nerve grafting and/or nerve transfers. Interview transcripts were coded by 2 researchers. We performed inductive thematic analysis to collate these codes into themes, focusing on the role of brachial plexus exploration in the treatment of BPI. Results Most surgeons routinely explore the supraclavicular brachial plexus in situations of pan-plexus and upper trunk injuries. Reasons to explore included the importance of obtaining a definitive root level diagnosis, perceived availability of donor nerve roots, timing of anticipated recovery, plans for distal reconstruction, and the potential for neurolysis. Very few explore lower trunk injuries, citing concern with technical difficulty and unfavorable risk-benefit profile. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that supraclavicular exploration remains a foundational component of surgical management of BPI, despite increasing utilization of distal nerve transfers. Availability of abundant donor axons and establishing an accurate diagnosis were cited as primary reasons in support of exploration. This analysis of surgeon interviews characterizes contemporary practices regarding the role of brachial plexus exploration in the treatment of BPI.

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 Reconstruction and Tendon Transfers for Treatment of Brachial Plexus Injuries

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Dy ◽  
David M. Brogan ◽  
Martin I. Boyer ◽  
Carol B. Loeb ◽  
Jerome T. Loeb
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Brachial Plexus Injury ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Shoulder Abduction ◽  
Nerve Grafting ◽  
Nerve Reconstruction ◽  
Reconstructive Procedures ◽  
Tendon Transfers ◽  
Neurologic Recovery ◽  
Nerve Transfers

The complexity of each brachial plexus injury (BPI) pattern and physiologic limitations of nerve regeneration create challenges for BPI patients and their surgeons. Detailed assessment via physical examination, electrodiagnostic studies, and advanced imaging can aid the surgeon in predicting the prognosis for each patient’s neurologic recovery and provide an outline for reconstructive priorities. Surgical exploration of the brachial plexus confirms the injury pattern and guides the overall treatment strategies. A multimodal reconstructive strategy including nerve grafting, extraplexal nerve transfers, distal intraplexal nerve transfers, and free-functioning muscle transfers is designed for each patient to accomplish the goals of providing a pain-free helper hand. Additional reconstructive procedures such as tendon transfers and selective joint arthrodeses are used after the results of the initial reconstructive efforts have been declared. Beyond the neurologic components of BPI, the surgeon must be attuned to the social and psychological sequelae of this devastating injury.  This review contains 10 figures, 1 table, and 60 references. Key Words: brachial plexus injury, elbow flexion, free-functioning muscle transfer, nerve grafting, nerve transfer, reconstruction, shoulder abduction, , tendon transfer

Motor Nerve Transfers

Neurosurgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilson Z. Ray ◽  
Jason Chang ◽  
Ammar Hawasli ◽  
Thomas J. Wilson ◽  
Lynda Yang
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Marked Improvement ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Motor Nerve ◽  
Nerve Transfer ◽  
Nerve Grafting ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Injuries ◽  
Nerve Injuries ◽  
Nerve Transfers

Abstract Brachial plexus and peripheral nerve injuries are exceedingly common. Traditional nerve grafting reconstruction strategies and techniques have not changed significantly over the last 3 decades. Increased experience and wider adoption of nerve transfers as part of the reconstructive strategy have resulted in a marked improvement in clinical outcomes. We review the options, outcomes, and indications for nerve transfers to treat brachial plexus and upper- and lower-extremity peripheral nerve injuries, and we explore the increasing use of nerve transfers for facial nerve and spinal cord injuries. Each section provides an overview of donor and recipient options for nerve transfer and of the relevant anatomy specific to the desired function.

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

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.

scholarly journals Investigation Into the Optimal Number of Intercostal Nerve Transfers for Musculocutaneous Nerve Reinnervation: A Systematic Review

Hand ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 621-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyuma A. Leland ◽  
Beina Azadgoli ◽  
Daniel J. Gould ◽  
Mitchel Seruya
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Donor Site Morbidity ◽  
Intercostal Nerve ◽  
Optimal Number ◽  
Musculocutaneous Nerve ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: The purpose of this study was to systematically review outcomes following intercostal nerve (ICN) transfer for restoration of elbow flexion, with a focus on identifying the optimal number of nerve transfers. Methods: A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies describing ICN transfers to the musculocutaneous nerve (MCN) for traumatic brachial plexus injuries in patients 16 years or older. Demographics were recorded, including age, time to operation, and level of brachial plexus injury. Muscle strength was scored based upon the British Medical Research Council scale. Results: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria for a total of 196 patients. Either 2 (n = 113), 3 (n = 69), or 4 (n = 11) ICNs were transferred to the MCN in each patient. The groups were similar with regard to patient demographics. Elbow flexion ≥M3 was achieved in 71.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.1%-79.7%) of patients with 2 ICNs, 67.7% (95% CI, 55.3%-78.0%) of patients with 3 ICNs, and 77.0% (95% CI, 44.9%-93.2%) of patients with 4 ICNs ( P = .79). Elbow flexion ≥M4 was achieved in 51.1% (95% CI, 37.4%-64.6%) of patients with 2 ICNs, 42.1% (95% CI, 29.5%-55.9%) of patients with 3 ICNs, and 48.4% (95% CI, 19.2%-78.8%) of patients with 4 ICNs ( P = .66). Conclusions: Previous reports have described 2.5 times increased morbidity with each additional ICN harvest. Based on the equivalent strength of elbow flexion irrespective of the number of nerves transferred, 2 ICNs are recommended to the MCN to avoid further donor-site morbidity.

Comparing the Efficacy of Triple Nerve Transfers with Nerve Graft Reconstruction in Upper Trunk Obstetric Brachial Plexus Injury

2017 ◽  
Vol 140 (4) ◽  
pp. 747-756 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen M. O’Grady ◽  
Hollie A. Power ◽  
Jaret L. Olson ◽  
Michael J. Morhart ◽  
A. Robertson Harrop ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brachial Plexus ◽  
Brachial Plexus Injury ◽  
Nerve Graft ◽  
Nerve Transfers ◽  
Obstetric Brachial Plexus ◽  
Graft Reconstruction ◽  
Obstetric Brachial Plexus Injury

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document