Narrow Results

Neuropathic pain in root avulsion brachial plexus injury (BPI) is severe and unrelenting. Routine analgesics and other described methods often provide inadequate pain relief. We report a patient with neuropathic pain following C₈T₁ root avulsion injury, which was successfully managed with end-to-side ulnar sensory branch transfer to the median nerve. Postoperatively, there was a marked reduction in pain score as determined by visual analogue score (VAS) and a marked improvement in the daily sleep interference scale (DSIS). This option may be considered in patients with severe neuropathic pain in lower root avulsion injury in BPI.

Level of Evidence: Level V (Therapeutic)

We report a successful application of Oberlin's procedure combined with transfer of trapezius and latissimus dorsi with the teres major for reconstruction of elbow flexion as well as abduction and external rotation of the shoulder to a ten-year-old patient, who had a long defect of the left brachial plexus upper trunk caused by resection of the plexiform neuroma.

To evaluate the subjective satisfaction of brachial plexus injury (BPI) patients after surgery based on the medical outcomes study 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) and to correlate their SF-36 scores with upper extremity functions. Four items were assessed statistically for 30 patients: SF-36 scores after BPI surgery were compared with Japanese standard scores; the correlation between SF-36 scores and objective joint functions; difference in SF-36 scores between each type of BPI; and influence of each joint function on the SF-36 scores. The SF-36 subscale: PF — physical functioning, RP — role-physical, BP — bodily pain, and the summary score PCS — physical component summary, were significantly inferior to the Japanese standard scores. SF-36 is more sensitive to shoulder joint function than to elbow and finger joint functions. Little correlation was found between SF-36 scores and objective evaluations of joint functions. Greater effort is needed to improve the quality of life (QOL) of BPI patients. This study showed that SF-36 is not sensitive enough to evaluate regional conditions. A region- or site-specific questionnaire is required to evaluate upper extremity surgery.

Background: In Thailand, brachial plexus injury is a common traumatic injury that affects the function of the upper extremity. The current treatments focus mainly on improving the motor and sensory function. Apart from the motor and sensory deficit, these patients usually suffer from pain. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and factors that relate to neuropathic pain in patients with brachial plexus injury. Methods: We collected data from March 2008 to July 2011. The DN4 Questionnaire was used to diagnose neuropathic pain in 95 patients. Results: The prevalence of neuropathic pain was as high as 76%. Majority of patients presented with hypoesthesia to pin prick, hypoesthesia to touch and numbness. Severity of neuropathic pain was significantly correlated with the type of brachial plexus injury. There was no difference between demographic characteristics of patients. Conclusion: Our study showed that the prevalence of neuropathic pain was high in brachial plexus injured patients. Therefore, surgeons should be aware of this common, yet underestimated, problem in brachial plexus injured patients.

Brachial plexus injuries (BPI) can be complicated by diaphragmatic paralysis (DP). This study determined the influence of DP on biceps brachii (BB) recovery after intercostal nerve transfer (ICNT) for BPI and investigated the respiratory complications of ICNT. The study included 100 patients, 84 showing no DP in preoperative and early postoperative chest radiographic images (non-DP group) and 16 with DP that persisted for over one year after surgery (DP group). The postoperative reinnervation time did not differ between groups. BB strength one year after surgery was lower in the DP group than non-DP group (p = 0.0007). No differences were observed 2–3 years after surgery. In the DP group, four patients had respiratory symptoms that affected daily activities and their outcomes deteriorated (p = 0.04). Phrenic nerve transfer should not be combined with ICNT in patients with poor respiratory function because of the high incidence of respiratory complications.

Background: Previous animal studies demonstrated that the sensory and motor functions in ipsilesional upper limbs that had been reconstructed by CC7 transfer eventually associated with the contralesional brain cortices that had originally mediated the functions of the ipsilesional upper limbs before brachial plexus injury (BPI). Our hypothesis was that the same findings would be seen in humans.

Methods: Four patients with total BPI treated with CC7 transfer were included. Changes in the locations of the activated areas in the primary motor (M1) and somatosensory (S1) cortices corresponding to the motor outputs to and sensory inputs from the ipsilesional limbs were investigated using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) 2–3 years and 6–7 years after surgery.

Results: One patient was excluded from the evaluation of motor function after CC7 transfer. The motor and sensory functions of the ipsilesional upper limb in all patients were still controlled by the ipsilesional brain hemisphere 2–3 years after CC7 transfer. The reconstructed motions of the ipsilesional upper limbs correlated with the contralesional M1 in one patient and the bilateral M1s in another patient (both of whom demonstrated good motor recovery in the ipsilesional upper limbs) and with the ipsilesional M1 in a third patient with poor motor recovery in the ipsilesional upper limb. Sensory stimulation of the ipsilesional hands 6–7 years after CC7 transfer activated the contralesional S1 in two patients who achieved good sensory recovery in the ipsilesional hands but activated the ipsilesional S1 in the other two patients with poor sensory recovery of the ipsilesional hands.

Conclusions: Transhemispheric transposition of the activated brain cortices associated with the recovery of motor and sensory functions of the ipsilesional upper limbs was seen in patients with CC7 transfer as has been reported for animal models of CC7 transfer.

Background: The finding of pseudomeningocele from cervical myelogram is widely accepted as a pathognomonic sign for diagnosing root avulsion in brachial plexus injury. In general, motor power in this setting should be absent. However, in clinical practice, we observed that motor power in some patients was still preserved. The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of pseudomeningocele from cervical myelogram for predicting root avulsion in brachial plexus injury.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 201 patients with brachial plexus injury from 2007–2011. Four patients were excluded due to open wound injury. Motor power of the key muscle of each nerve root was evaluated by skilled hand surgeons. All cervical myelogram was interpreted by radiologists. Sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values and negative predictive values were calculated with 95% confidence interval.

Results: Thirty and 29% of pseudomeningocele occurred at C7 and C8 level, respectively. The sensitivity of pseudomeningocele of each root from C5 to T1 was low (range, 10–62%). The specificity was high only at C5 (91%) and T1 (96.2%). Over 20% of patients with pseudomeningocele at C6–8 levels had some motor function. The initial muscle power of these patients was M1 or M2 and 70% of them recovered to at least M3 at the final follow-up.

Conclusions: Pseudomeningocele is not an absolute sign for diagnosing of root avulsion in brachial plexus injury due to its high false positive rate when compared with preoperative motor function of each root. Careful examination of the key muscle of each root is extremely crucial to prevent unnecessary operation on that cervical nerve root.

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.

Background: Partial ulnar nerve transfer to the biceps motor branch of the musculocutaneous nerve (Oberlin’s transfer) is a successful approach to restore elbow flexion in patients with upper brachial plexus injury (BPI). However, there is no report on more than 10 years subjective and objective outcomes. The purpose of this study was to clarify the long-term outcomes of Oberlin’s transfer based on the objective evaluation of elbow flexion strength and subjective functional evaluation of patients.

Methods: Six patients with BPI who underwent Oberlin’s transfer were reviewed retrospectively by their medical records. The mean age at surgery was 29.5 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 13 years. The objective functional outcomes were evaluated by biceps muscle strength using the Medical Research Council (MRC) grade at preoperative, postoperative, and final follow-up. The patient-derived subjective functional outcomes were evaluated using the Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire at final follow-up.

Results: All patients had MRC grade 0 (M0) or 1 (M1) elbow flexion strength before operation. Four patients gained M4 postoperatively and maintained or increased muscle strength at the final follow-up. One patient gained M3 postoperatively and at the final follow-up. Although one patient achieved M4 postoperatively, the strength was reduced to M2 due to additional disorder. The mean score of QuickDASH was 36.5 (range, 7–71). Patients were divided into two groups; three patients had lower scores and the other three patients had higher scores of QuickDASH.

Conclusions: Oberlin’s transfer is effective in the restoration of elbow flexion and can maintain the strength for more than 10 years. Patients with upper BPI with restored elbow flexion strength and no complicated nerve disorders have over ten-year subjective satisfaction.

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.

A new nerve transfer option of using viable fascicle of the ipsilateral middle trunk for suprascapular nerve reconstruction is presented. The procedure was used in two patients with upper brachial plexus injury involving loss of shoulder abduction and external rotation. Clinical evaluation and nerve conduction studies in both patients confirmed axonopathy of C5, C6 roots and C5 root, respectively. The proximal root stumps were unavailable for nerve grafting due to a very proximal root level scarring. The middle trunk fascicle was dissected on its superior surface and transferred to the non-functional suprascapular nerve. After 24 months follow up full abduction and external rotation could be achieved in both the patients. It is a simple and easy option for transfer to a suprascapular nerve in upper brachial plexus injuries. It lies next only to the upper trunk and does not require any additional dissection time. Donor deficit was not observed in our two patients.

The advent of nerve transfers has revolutionised the treatment of brachial plexus and peripheral nerve injuries of the upper extremity. Nerve transfers offer faster reinnervation of a denervated muscle by taking advantage of a donor nerve, branch or fascicle close to the recipient muscle. A number of considerations in respect of donor selection for nerve transfers underlie their success. In this review article, we discuss the principles of donor selection for nerve transfers, the different options available and our considerations in choosing a suitable transfer in reanimating the elbow and the shoulder. We feel this will help nerve surgeons navigate the controversies in the selection of donor nerves and make appropriate treatment decisions for their patients.

Level of Evidence: V (Therapeutic)

Background: Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire is the most widely used patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for assessment of upper extremity disability assessment. However, DASH is a multidimensional measurement with different difficulty levels and ratio apportionment of the items categorised by ordinal scale. This has caused a misinterpretation of the total disability scores. We created a modified DASH adapted to the Rasch model. The aim of this study is to compare the functional recovery and quality of life (QOL) improvement and to assess the validity of the original DASH and modified DASH between C56/C567, C5-8 and total types of brachial plexus injury (BPI) following surgical reconstruction.

Methods: A total of 183 BPI patients who underwent reconstructive surgery were evaluated for functional recovery using the range of motion and power of the affected limb, and improvement in QOL with DASH. The collected data were analysed using Rasch measurement theory to detect the misfit items. The original and modified DASH were compared under the three different types of BPI after item reduction by removing the misfit items.

Results: There were significant differences in functional recovery between three types of palsy. However, PROM using DASH score with or without misfit items (12 items) did not show any significant differences.

Conclusions: DASH is not suitable for comparison of upper extremity disabilities even after being corrected mathematically due to the inclusion of items from many different domains unequally. Therefore, each item of the function (with or without compensation of the uninjured hand), pain and impact to the patients should be evaluated separately.

Level of Evidence: Level IV (Prognostic)

Background: Upper arm type brachial plexus palsy results in decreased shoulder and elbow function. Reanimation of shoulder and elbow function is beneficial in these patients. The aim of this study is to report the results of restoring the shoulder abduction and elbow extension in patients with C_5,6,7 root avulsion injury by simultaneous transfer of the spinal accessory nerve for the supraspinatus muscle combined with the transferring of the sixth and seventh intercostal nerves for the serratus anterior muscle along with the third to fifth intercostal nerves to the triceps muscle.

Methods: All patients who underwent the above set of nerve transfers and had at least 2 years of follow-up were included in the study. The outcome measures included the Medical Research Council (MRC) grading of motor strength of shoulder abduction and elbow extension and range of motion of shoulder abduction and shoulder external rotation.

Results: The study included 10 patients with an average age of 27. The mean time from injury to surgery was 6 months and the mean follow-up period was 35 months. M4 grade shoulder abduction was restored in five patients, M3 grade in three patients and M2 grade in two. M4 grade elbow extension was achieved in four patients, M3 grade in four patients and M2 grade in two patients. The average arc of shoulder abduction and external rotation was 71° and −21°, respectively.

Conclusions: The spinal accessory nerve and the sixth and seventh intercostal nerves transfer to the supraspinatus muscle and serratus anterior muscle with the third to fifth intercostal nerves transfer to the triceps muscle provided satisfactory results for both shoulder abduction and elbow extension in C_5,6,7 root avulsion injury.

Level of Evidence: Level IV (Therapeutic)

Background: In brachial plexus surgery, a key focus is restoring shoulder abduction through spinal accessory nerve (SAN) to suprascapular nerve (SSN) transfer using either the anterior or posterior approach. However, no published randomised control trials have directly compared their outcomes to date. Therefore, our study aims to assess motor outcomes for both approaches.

Methods: This study comprises two groups of patients. Group A: anterior approach (29 patients), Group B: Posterior approach (29 patients). Patients were allocated to both groups using selective randomisation with the sealed envelope technique. Functional outcome was assessed by grading the muscle power of shoulder abductors using the British Medical Research Council (MRC) scale.

Results: Five patients who were operated on by posterior approach had ossified superior transverse suprascapular ligament. In these cases, the approach was changed from posterior to anterior to avoid injury to SSN. Due to this reason, the treatment analysis was done considering the distribution as: Group A: 34, Group B: 24. The mean duration of appearance of first clinical sign of shoulder abduction was 8.16 months in Group A, whereas in Group B, it was 6.85 months, which was significantly earlier (p < 0.05). At the 18-month follow-up, both intention-to-treat analysis and as-treated analysis were performed, and there was no statistical difference in the outcome of shoulder abduction between the approaches for SAN to SSN nerve transfer.

Conclusions: Our study found no significant difference in the restoration of shoulder abduction power between both approaches; therefore, either approach can be used for patients presenting early for surgery. Since the appearance of first clinical sign of recovery is earlier in posterior approach, therefore, it can be preferred for cases presenting at a later stage. Also, the choice of approach is guided on a case to case basis depending on clavicular fractures and surgeon preference to the approach.

Level of Evidence: Level II (Therapeutic)