Narrow Results

Nerve transfers Oberlin-type are currently used in upper brachial plexus lesions to recover elbow flexion. Is the regained active motion sufficient to resume heavy manual activities? Five adult patients (mean age 37 years) operated of a nerve transfer to recover elbow flexion (transfer of a motor fascicle of the ulnar nerve to the motor branch of the biceps; in three patients, additional transfer from the median to the motor nerve of the brachialis) were clinically and isokinetically evaluated, after a mean follow-up of 47 months. The median Constant-Murley score was 22/100, the DASH 56/100 and the MEPI 60/100. For isokinetic tests the most significant finding was a severe deficit of elbow strength, of about 80%. No patient was able to maintain an isometric contraction during sufficient time to evaluate fatigability. This preliminary study suggests that major functional impairments persist despite early recovery of elbow flexion. These results should be confirmed in a study on a larger group of patients.

Background: Brachial plexus injury is very commonly associated with road traffic accidents, and frequently affects young adults, causing significant disability and impact on quality of life. The successful treatment of upper plexus injury with the Oberlin technique to restore elbow flexion with good functional results.

Methods: We retrieved the records of all patients with upper plexus injury who underwent Oberlin transfer operation between March 2007 and July 2012. Outcomes were assessed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) power grading system for biceps muscle, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (DASH) for patient functional outcomes and the Visual Analogue Scale for daily disability (VAS where 0- no restrictions; 10- significant limitations) for overall patient satisfaction. Follow-up was performed for at least 12 months post-operatively.

Results: The average follow up period was 43.6 months. Six cases gained effective elbow flexion, improving to MRC grade 5/5 and four cases improved to MRC grade 4/5 for biceps function. The average DASH score was 27.25. One patient had serious disability with no changes after Oberlin’s transfer operation. No permanent impairment of ulnar nerve function was observed. Seven out of 10 patients had begun daily work, with no discomfort and no functional impact on activities of daily living.

Conclusions: We found The Oberlin transfer is a useful salvage procedure and most effective results are for young patients with short interval between injury and operation.

Background: In combined high median and ulnar nerve injury, transfer of the posterior interosseous nerve branches to the motor branch of the ulnar nerve (MUN) is previously described in order to restore intrinsic hand function. In this operation a segment of sural nerve graft is required to close the gap between the donor and recipient nerves. However the thenar muscles are not innervated by this nerve transfer. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether the superficial radial nerve (SRN) can be used as an “in situ vascular nerve graft” to connect the donor nerves to the MUN and the motor branch of median nerve (MMN) at the same time in order to address all denervated intrinsic and thenar muscles.

Methods: Twenty fresh male cadavers were dissected in order to evaluate the feasibility of this modification of technique. The size of nerve branches, the number of axons and the tension at repair site were evaluated.

Results: This nerve transfer was technically feasible in all specimens. There was no significant size mismatch between the donor and recipient nerves

Conclusions: The possible advantages of this modification include innervation of both median and ulnar nerve innervated intrinsic muscles, preservation of vascularity of the nerve graft which might accelerate the nerve regeneration, avoidance of leg incision and therefore the possibility of performing surgery under regional instead of general anesthesia. Briefly, this novel technique is a viable option which can be used instead of conventional nerve graft in some brachial plexus or combined high median and ulnar nerve injuries when restoration of intrinsic hand function by transfer of posterior interosseous nerve branches is attempted.

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.

A 25-year-old man sustained a right-sided brachial plexus injury from a high-velocity motocross accident. Physical examination and electromyography were consistent with a pan-brachial plexopathy with no evidence of axonal continuity. The patient underwent a spinal accessory to suprascapular nerve transfer and an intercostal to musculocutaneous nerve transfer with interpositional sural nerve grafts. He recovered MRC 4/5 elbow flexion and MRC 2/5 shoulder abduction and external rotation. Twenty-two months post-injury the patient displayed a flicker of flexion of his flexor pollicis longus and flexor digitorum profundus to his index finger – he went on to recover a functional pinch. Thirty-six months post-injury the patient displayed a flicker of contraction in brachioradialis with motor unit potentials on electromyography. This case demonstrates that some patients may have capacity for functional recovery after prolonged denervation and highlights the potential impact of anatomical anomalies in the assessment and treatment of peripheral nerve injuries.

Management of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours (MPNSTs) is primarily surgical, involving surgical resection with wide margins, and frequently radiation therapy. When a MPNST involves a major peripheral nerve, wide resection leads to significant distal neurologic deficits. A patient who underwent resection of a MPNST involving the median nerve above the elbow is presented. Staged tendon and nerve transfers were performed to restore sensation to the thumb and index finger, thumb opposition and flexion, finger flexion and forearm pronation. These included: 1. radial sensory nerve branches to digital nerves of thumb and index finger, 2. ulnar nerve branch of flexor carpi ulnaris to pronator teres, 3. brachioradialis to flexor pollicis longus, 4. side-to-side transfer of flexor digitorum profundus tendon of index finger to middle, ring and little fingers, 5. extensor indicis proprius to abductor pollicis brevis. The rationale, approach, and favourable results of functional reconstruction in this patient are detailed.

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: 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)

Motor deficit in patients with extended upper brachial plexus palsy is variable. A patient with only thumb and finger extensors may seem to have active wrist extension because of them secondarily acting at wrist and causing wrist extension. To determine the presence of wrist extensors, it is important to block the wrist extension caused by the finger and thumb extensors. Conventional muscle testing is often ineffective in these patients as they learn a variety of trick movements over the time. We describe a simple clinical test to reveal the strength of the wrist extensors only by negating the effect of digital extensors on the wrist. If wrist extensors are absent, a nerve or tendon transfer can be done to address this deficit and improve the functional outcome.

Level of Evidence: Level V (Diagnostic)

Background: Primary repair for traumatic injuries to the ulnar nerve alone does not always restore satisfactory hand function, particularly in injuries above the elbow where the long distances for regeneration limit motor reinnervation. Reductions in key pinch and grip strength are some of the main complaints. Tendon transfers have traditionally been used to improve key pinch and grip strength as a late salvage where primary nerve regeneration has run its course. Nerve transfers have been proposed as an alternative procedure and may be offered early to augment recovery, lengthen the window for reinnervation or provide motor reinnervation where the results of nerve repair are expected to be poor. This review sought to identify whether one type of procedure was superior to the other for reconstructing key pinch and grip strength.

Methods: Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify articles that concerned nerve or tendon transfer following isolated traumatic injury to the ulnar nerve. Articles were excluded if patients had polytrauma or degenerative diseases of the peripheral nerves.

Results: A total of 179 articles were screened for inclusion. And 35 full-text articles were read and assessed for eligibility, of which seven articles were eligible. Following citation search, two additional articles were included. Five tendon transfer articles and four nerve transfer articles were included. Key pinch and grip strength outcomes for both procedures were roughly similar, though tendon transfers carried a much higher risk of complications.

Conclusions: Based on the key pinch and grip strength outcomes, tendon transfer and nerve transfer restore a similar degree of function following traumatic ulnar injury. Reported nerve transfer outcomes for grip strength were slightly better. Return to useful function was faster following tendon transfers. Preoperative data and more patient-reported outcome measures should be recorded in future studies to provide more context for each procedure type.

Level of Evidence: Level III (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)

Distal nerve transfers can restore precise motor control in tetraplegic patients. When nerve transfers are not successful, tendon transfers may be used for subsequent reconstruction. In this case, an extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) tendon transfer was used to restore thumb and finger flexion following an unsuccessful ECRB to anterior interosseous nerve transfer in a young tetraplegic patient. Twelve months following tendon transfer, the patient demonstrated functional grip and pinch strength and was using both hands for daily activities.

Level of Evidence: Level V (Therapeutic)