[Salads in hospitals--a source of infections?].

D. Michaeli

1982-02-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Elbow flexion reconstruction with nerve transfer or grafting in patients with brachial plexus injuries: A systematic review and comparison study

Egemen Ayhan,Francisco Soldado,César G. Fontecha,Jayme A. Bertelli,Gursel Leblebicioglu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.30440

2019-02-13

Microsurgery

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: Posttraumatic brachial plexus (BP) palsy was used to be treated by reconstruction with nerve grafts. For the last two decades, nerve transfers have gained popularity and believed to be more effective than nerve grafting. The aim of this systematic review was to compare elbow flexion restoration with nerve transfers or nerve grafting after traumatic BP injury.METHODS: PRISMA-IPD structure was used for 52 studies included. Patients were allocated as C5-C6 (n = 285), C5-C6-C7 (n = 150), and total BP injury (n = 245) groups. In each group, two treatment modalities were compared, and effects of age and preoperative interval were analyzed.RESULTS: In C5-C6 injuries, 93.1% of nerve transfer patients achieved elbow flexion force ≥M3, which was significantly better when compared to 69.2% of nerve graft patients (p < 0.001). For improved outcomes of nerve transfer patients, shorter preoperative interval was a significant factor in all injury patterns (p < 0.001 for C5-C6 injuries and total BP injuries, p = 0.018 for C5-C6-C7 injuries), and young age was a significant factor in total BP injury pattern (p = 0.022).CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses showed that nerve transfers appear superior to nerve graftings especially in patients with a C5-C6 injury. Unnecessary delays in surgery must be prevented, and younger patients may have more chance for better recovery.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

surgery
Comparative Study of Intercostal Nerve and Contralateral C7 Nerve Transfers for Elbow Extension after Global Brachial Plexus Avulsion

Feng Xiao,Jie Lao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0000000000002312

2020-01-01

Annals of Plastic Surgery

Abstract:Introduction Elbow extensive reconstruction was essential for the patients with brachial plexus avulsion. Nerve transfer was applied to repair elbow extension, but the ultimate recovery was quite different. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of elbow extension in patients with global brachial plexus avulsion after repaired by intercostal nerve (ICN) and contralateral cervical 7 (cC7) nerve transfer to the long head branch of triceps and to analyze the possible influencing factors. Materials and Methods A retrospective review of 24 patients treated with ICN and cC7 nerve transfer for elbow extension in posttraumatic global brachial plexus avulsion was carried out. Two ICNs were used as donors in 17 patients, and cC7 nerve was used in the other 7 patients. We evaluated the recovery of elbow extension by the British Medical Research Council grading system and electromyography. The correlation between age, preoperative interval, and prognosis was analyzed in this study. Results Efficiency of elbow extensor strength in the ICN transfer group was 47.06%, and it was 28.57% in the cC7 nerve transfer group, but there was no significant difference (P = 0.653). The effective recovery of electromyography in ICN transfer group was 82.35%, whereas in the group cC7 nerve transfer, it was 28.57%, there was a statistical difference between the 2 groups (P = 0.021). Age and interval were negatively correlated with prognosis. Conclusions Intercostal nerve or cC7 nerve transfer to the long head branch of triceps could reconstruct elbow extension to some extent. Compared with cC7 nerve transfer, ICN transfer had a greater result for elbow extension, but the difference in extension power was not significant, whereas there was difference in electromyography recovery. Patient's age and interval were negatively correlated with the results.
Intercostal Nerve Transfers to Native Triceps or Free Muscle Flaps for Elbow Extension in Brachial Plexus Injuries

Scott Ferris,Simon Maciburko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1778063

2024-01-22

Abstract:Intercostal nerve donors for traumatic brachial plexus injury reconstruction have been used to neurotize native muscles or free-functioning muscle transfers, with inconsistent outcomes reported. The aim was to record a substantial series, evaluate functional outcomes, and identify prognostic factors. We present a single-surgeon case series of 21 consecutive patients who underwent 21 transfer procedures to either native muscles or free-functioning muscles to reconstruct elbow extension over a 9-year period. Outcome parameters included target muscle power grade and timing of recovery. A Medical Research Council power grade ≥ M4 was achieved in 17 reconstructions. The free-functioning muscle group had significantly higher success rate and reached their best power grade 14 months earlier. Free-functioning muscle reconstruction with intercostal nerve transfer is a more complex procedure but has quicker functional recovery and greater reliability in achieving grade M4.
Evaluation of Nerve Transfer Options for Treating Total Brachial Plexus Avulsion Injury: A Retrospective Study of 73 Participants.

Kai-Ming Gao,Jing-Jing Hu,Jie Lao,Xin Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1673-5374.228730

2018-01-01

Neural Regeneration Research

Abstract:Despite recent great progress in diagnosis and microsurgical repair, the prognosis in total brachial plexus-avulsion injury remains unfavorable. Insufficient number of donors and unreasonable use of donor nerves might be key factors. To identify an optimal treatment strategy for this condition, we conducted a retrospective review. Seventy-three patients with total brachial plexus avulsion injury were followed up for an average of 7.3 years. Our analysis demonstrated no significant difference in elbow-flexion recovery between phrenic nerve-transfer (25 cases), phrenic nerve-graft (19 cases), intercostal nerve (17 cases), or contralateral C7-transfer (12 cases) groups. Restoration of shoulder function was attempted through anterior accessory nerve (27 cases), posterior accessory nerve (10 cases), intercostal nerve (5 cases), or accessory + intercostal nerve transfer (31 cases). Accessory nerve + intercostal nerve transfer was the most effective method. A significantly greater amount of elbow extension was observed in patients with intercostal nerve transfer (25 cases) than in those with contralateral C7 transfer (10 cases). Recovery of median nerve function was noticeably better for those who received entire contralateral C7 transfer (33 cases) than for those who received partial contralateral C7 transfer (40 cases). Wrist and finger extension were reconstructed by intercostal nerve transfer (31 cases). Overall, the recommended surgical treatment for total brachial plexus-avulsion injury is phrenic nerve transfer for elbow flexion, accessory nerve + intercostal nerve transfer for shoulder function, intercostal nerves transfer for elbow extension, entire contralateral C7 transfer for median nerve function, and intercostal nerve transfer for finger extension. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT03166033).
Intercostal nerve transfer to neurotize the musculocutaneous nerve after traumatic brachial plexus avulsion: a comparison of two, three, and four nerve transfers.

Chengwei Xiao,Jie Lao,Tao Wang,Xin Zhao,Jingbo Liu,Yudong Gu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1361840

2014-01-01

Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery

Abstract:The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of different numbers of intercostal nerve (ICN) transfers for elbow flexion and to determine whether age, body mass index (BMI), type of injury, and preoperative delay influence the outcomes. From 2004 to 2010, 32 (30 included) consecutive patients underwent ICN transfer to the musculocutaneous nerve following brachial plexus injury. Elbow flexion strength was evaluated according to the British Medical Research Council (BMRC) grading system. Of nine patients who received two ICN transfers, six (66.7%) recovered with useful elbow flexion compared with 14 of 17 (82.4%) patients who received three ICN transfers. Of the four patients with four ICN transfers, three (75%) achieved useful recovery. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference. There is no significant difference among the outcomes of two, three, and four ICN transfers to the musculocutaneous nerve. Two ICN transfers are sufficient for useful recovery of elbow flexion. Younger patients achieve better results.
Comparative study of phrenic and partial ulnar nerve transfers for elbow flexion after upper brachial plexus avulsion: A retrospective clinical analysis.

Yuzhou Liu,Yongqing Zhuang,Hu Yu,Hongtao Xiong,Jie Lao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.05.024

2018-01-01

Abstract:The widely used nerve transfer sources for elbow flexion in patients with upper brachial plexus avulsion (UBPA) include partial ulnar nerve, phrenic nerve, and intercostal nerves. A retrospective review of 21 patients treated with phrenic and partial ulnar nerve transfers for elbow flexion after UBPA was carried out. In the phrenic nerve transfer group, the phrenic nerve was transferred to the anterolateral bundle of the anterior division of the upper trunk; in the partial ulnar nerve transfer group, one fascicle of the ulnar nerve was transferred to the biceps branch. The British Medical Research Council (MRC) grading system, angle of elbow flexion, electromyography (EMG), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire scoring were used to evaluate the recovery of elbow flexion at least 3 years postoperatively. The efficiency of motor function in phrenic nerve transfer group was 82%, whereas it was 80% in partial ulnar nerve transfer group. The outstanding rates of angle of elbow flexion were 64% and 70% in phrenic and partial ulnar nerve transfer groups, respectively. The DASH scores after surgery were significantly lower than those before surgery in the two groups. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in the changes of DASH scores before and after surgery. Both of phrenic and partial ulnar nerve transfers had good prognosis for elbow flexion in patients with UBPA.
Comparative Study of Phrenic and Intercostal Nerve Transfers for Elbow Flexion after Global Brachial Plexus Injury.

Yuzhou Liu,Jie Lao,Kaiming Gao,Yudong Gu,Xin Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.11.034

IF: 2.687

2014-01-01

Injury

Abstract:Objective: The aim of this study was to compare phrenic and intercostal nerve transfers for elbow flexion after global brachial plexus injury. Methods: A retrospective review of 33 patients treated with phrenic and intercostal nerve transfer for elbow flexion in posttraumatic global root avulsion brachial plexus injury was carried out. Phrenic nerve transfer group: phrenic nerve was transferred to anterolateral bundle of anterior division of upper trunk (23 patients); intercostal nerve transfer group: three intercostal nerves were coapted to the anterolateral bundles of musculocutaneous nerve. The British Medical Research Council (MRC) grading system, angle of elbow flexion, and electromyography (EMG) were used to evaluate the recovery of elbow flexion at least 3 years after surgery. Results: The efficiency of motor function in phrenic nerve transfer group was 83%, while it was 70% in intercostal nerve transfer group. The 2 groups were not statistically different in terms of MRC grade ( P = .646) and EMG results ( P = .646). The outstanding rates of angle of elbow flexion were 48% and 40% in phrenic and intercostal nerve transfer groups, respectively. There was no significant difference of outstanding rates in angle of elbow flexion between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Phrenic nerve transfer had a higher proportion of good prognosis for elbow flexion than intercostal nerve transfer, but the effective and outstanding rate had no significant difference for biceps reinnervation between the 2 groups according to MRC grading, angle of elbow flexion, and EMG.
Intercostal Nerve Transfer for Biceps Reinnervation in Obstetrical Brachial Plexus Palsy: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Individual Patient Data Systematic Review using Individualized Fusion and Comparison to Supraclavicular Exploration and Nerve Grafting

George Abdelmalek,George Ehab Mina,Krittika Pant,Zheshi Zheng,Jasmine Mahajan,Nivetha Srinivasan,Shivani Gupta,Jasmine Shafei,Michael F Levidy,Aleksandra McGrath,Alice Chu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/18632521231211644

2023-12-04

Abstract:Introduction: The objective of this study was to search existing literature on nerve reconstruction surgery in patients with obstetric brachial plexus palsy to determine whether treatment with supraclavicular exploration and nerve grafting produced better elbow flexion outcomes compared to intercostal nerve transfer. Methods: This study was a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Individual Patient Data guidelines. A systematic search was conducted using multiple databases. An ordinal regression model was used to analyze the effect of using supraclavicular exploration and nerve grafting or intercostal nerve on elbow flexion with the two scores measured: elbow flexion Medical Research Council scores and Toronto active movements scale scores for elbow flexion. Results: A final patient database from 6 published articles consisted of 83 supraclavicular exploration and nerve grafting patients (73 patients with Medical Research Council and 10 patients with Toronto score) and 7 published articles which consisted of 131 intercostal nerve patients (84 patients with Medical Research Council and 47 patients with Toronto scores). Patients who underwent supraclavicular exploration and nerve grafting presented with an average Medical Research Council score of 3.9 ± 0.72 and an average Toronto score of 6.2 ± 2.2. Patients who underwent intercostal nerve transfer presented with an average Medical Research Council score of 3.9 ± 0.71 and an average Toronto score of 6.4 ± 1.2. There was no statistical difference between supraclavicular exploration and nerve grafting and intercostal nerve transfer when utilizing Medical Research Council elbow flexion scores (ordinal regression: 0.3821, standard error: 0.4590, p = 0.2551) or Toronto Active Movement Scale score for elbow flexion (ordinal regression: 0.7154, standard error: 0.8487, p = 0.2188). Conclusion: Regardless of surgical intervention utilized (supraclavicular exploration and nerve grafting or intercostal nerve transfers), patients had excellent outcomes for elbow flexion following obstetric brachial plexus palsy when utilizing Medical Research Council or Toronto scores for elbow flexion. The difference between these scores was not statistically significant. Type of study/Level of evidence: Therapeutic Study: Investigating the Result of Treatment/level III.

pediatrics,orthopedics
Distal nerve transfer versus supraclavicular nerve grafting: comparison of elbow flexion outcome in neonatal brachial plexus palsy with C5-C7 involvement

Carlos O. Heise,Mario G. Siqueira,Roberto S. Martins,Luciano H. Foroni,Hugo Sterman-Neto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-017-3492-0

2017-06-24

Abstract:PurposeUlnar and median nerve transfers to arm muscles have been used to recover elbow flexion in infants with neonatal brachial plexus palsy, but there is no direct outcome comparison with the classical supraclavicular nerve grafting approach.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients with C5-C7 neonatal brachial plexus palsy submitted to nerve surgery and recorded elbow flexion recovery using the active movement scale (0–7) at 12 and 24 months after surgery. We compared 13 patients submitted to supraclavicular nerve grafting with 21 patients submitted to distal ulnar or median nerve transfer to biceps motor branch. We considered elbow flexion scores of 6 or 7 as good results.ResultsThe mean elbow flexion score and the proportion of good results were better using distal nerve transfers than supraclavicular grafting at 12 months (p < 0.01), but not at 24 months. Two patients with failed supraclavicular nerve grafting at 12 months showed good elbow flexion recovery after ulnar nerve transfers.ConclusionDistal nerve transfers provided faster elbow flexion recovery than supraclavicular nerve grafting, but there was no significant difference in the outcome after 24 months of surgery. Patients with failed supraclavicular grafting operated early can still benefit from late distal nerve transfers. Supraclavicular nerve grafting should remain as the first line surgical treatment for children with neonatal brachial plexus palsy.

pediatrics,surgery,clinical neurology
Long-term results of intercostal nerve transfer to triceps branch of the radial nerve

Pei ZHAO,Jie LAO,Xin ZHAO,Kai-ming GAO

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005-054X.2013.04.004

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the long-term outcomes of restoring elbow extension by transferring intercostal nerves to the triceps branch of the radial nerve.Methods A retrospective study of 23 cases of brachial plexus injuries treated with intercostal nerve transfer to the triceps branch of the radial nerve at our hospital between 2004 and 2008 was conducted.Recovery of triceps muscle power and elbow extension was analyzed.Among these patients 16 had complete brachial plexus root avulsions while 7 had C5 to C7 root avulsions with lower trunk non-avulsion lesions.The mean duration between injmy and intercostal nerve transfer was 5.7 months.The mean follow-up time was 48.7 months.Results Good or excellent motor recovery of the triceps (muscle power over Ms) was achieved in 39.1％ of the patients.Triceps strength recovered to M2 in 30.4％ of the patients and to M1 or lower in 30.5 ％ of the patients.Patients with C5 to C7 root avulsion along with C8 to T1 traction had better recovery than those with complete brachial plexus root avulsions.There was no significant difference in treatment outcomes when 2 or more than 2 intercostal nerves were used for neurotization.Conclusion Intercostal nerves transfer to the triceps branch of the radial nerve can restore triceps function to some extent.
Phrenic Nerve Transfer for Elbow Flexion and Intercostal Nerve Transfer for Elbow Extension.

Mou-Xiong Zheng,Wen-Dong Xu,Yan-Qun Qiu,Jian-Guang Xu,Yu-Dong Gu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.04.006

IF: 2.342

2010-01-01

The Journal Of Hand Surgery

Abstract:Purpose To explore long-term recovery of elbow flexion and extension after transferring the phrenic nerve and intercostal nerves, respectively, in adults with global brachial plexus avulsion injuries.Methods Seven adults with global brachial plexus avulsion injuries had the phrenic nerve transferred to the musculocutaneous nerve (or to the anterior division of upper trunk) and intercostal nerves transferred to the triceps branch of the radial nerve at our hospital 7 to 12 years ago. The results of elbow motor strength testing using the Medical Research Council grading scale, and electrodiagnostic findings using electromyogram examinations, were studied retrospectively. Pulmonary function tests were also performed at final visits.Results Functional elbow flexion was obtained in most of the 7 cases (M2, 1; M3, 3; M4, 2; and M5, 1) but elbow extension was absent or insufficient in all subjects (M0, 1; M1, 3; and M2, 3). Electrical results showed successful biceps reinnervation in 6 patients and successful triceps reinnervation in 5. No patient experienced breathing problems, and pulmonary function results were within normal range. Conclusions In the long term, after brachial plexus avulsion injury in most patients who underwent both phrenic nerve and intercostal nerve transfer to achieve elbow flexion and extension eventually obtained satisfactory elbow flexion but poor elbow extension. We recommend against transferring the intercostal nerves to the triceps branch of radial nerve in conjunction with primary phrenic to musculocutaneous nerve transfer. (J Hand Surg 2010; 35A:1304-1309. Copyright (C) 2010 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. All rights reserved.)
The Surgical Strategy for the Treatment of Total Brachial Plexus Avulsion Injury Patient

Gao Kaiming,Lao Jie,Zhao Xin,Gu Yudong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944716660555ss

2016-01-01

HAND

Abstract:Objective: The total brachial plexus avulsion injury (BPAI) patients were treated in many organizations in the world, but the results reported differ significantly regarding different surgical strategy. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of different methods of nerve transfer and to determine a relatively optimal surgical strategy for treatment of total BPAI patients. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 73 patients with total BPAI who were treated with nerve transfer. The elbow flexion was reconstructed in 73 patients with phrenic nerve (PN) or intercostal nerves (ICNs) or contralateral C7 (cC7) transfer. The shoulder abduction was reconstructed in 73 patients with spinal accessory nerve (SAN) or ICNs transfer or both. Elbow extension was reconstructed in 35 patients with ICNs or cC7 transfer. Wrist and finger flexion were reconstructed in 73 patients with cC7 transfer. Wrist and finger extension were reconstructed in 31 patients with ICNs transfer. The mean follow-up period was 7.3 years. Results: The effective recovery rate were 79.5% in elbow flexion, 76.7% in shoulder abduction, 45.7% in elbow extension, 54.8% in wrist and finger flexion, 57.5% in median nerve area sensation, and 38.7% in wrist and finger extension. No significant difference was found in elbow flexion recovery between the patients with PN, ICN, or cC7 transfer. Shoulder abduction was significantly better in patients with SAN combined with ICNs transfer while no significant difference was found between the patients with anterior or posterior approach SAN transfer. Elbow extension was significantly better in patients with ICNs transfer. Entire cC7 transfer achieved significantly better recovery in wrist and finger flexion than partial cC7 transfer. Conclusion: For the treatment of total BPAI patients, we recommend PN transfer for elbow flexion, SAN combined with ICNs transfer for shoulder abduction, ICNs transfer for elbow extension, entire cC7 transfer for wrist and finger flexion, and ICNs transfer for finger extension, whereas for the elder or PN-injured patients, we recommend SAN combined with ICNs transfer for shoulder abduction, entire cC7 transfer for elbow flexion and wrist and finger flexion, and ICNs transfer for elbow extension and wrist and finger extension.
Outcome of Contralateral C7 Transfer to Two Recipient Nerves in 22 Patients with the Total Brachial Plexus Avulsion Injury

Kaiming Gao,Jie Lao,Xin Zhao,Yudong Gu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.22137

2013-01-01

Microsurgery

Abstract:The treatment of total brachial plexus avulsion injury is difficult with unfavorable prognosis. This report presents our experience on the contralateral C7 (CC7) nerve root transfer to neurotize two recipient nerves in the patients with total BPAI. Twenty‐two patients underwent CC7 transfer to two target nerves in the injured upper limb. The patients' ages ranged from 13 to 48 years. The entire CC7 was transferred to pedicled ulnar nerve in the first stage. The interval between trauma and surgery ranged from 1 to 13 months. The ulnar nerve was transferred to recipients (median nerve and biceps branch or median nerve and triceps branch) at 2–13 months after first operation. The motor recovery of wrist and finger flexor to M3 or greater was achieved in 68.2% of patients, the sensory recovery of median nerve area recovered to S3 or greater in 45.5% of patients. The functional recovery of elbow flexor to M3 or greater was achieved in 66.7% of patients with repair of biceps branch and 20% of patients with repair of the triceps branch (P < 0.05). There were no statistical differences in median nerve function recovery at comparisons of the age younger and older than 20‐years‐old and the intervals between trauma and surgery. In conclusion, the use of CC7 transfer for repair two recipient nerves might be an option for treatment of total BPAI. The functional recovery of the repaired biceps branch appeared to be better than that of the triceps branch. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery 33:605–611, 2013.
The Intercostal Nerves Transfer to the Radial Nerve Branch to the Long Head Triceps Muscle: Influencing Factor and Outcome of 55 Cases

Piyabuth Kittithamvongs,Somsak Leechavengvongs,Kanchai Malungpaishrope,Warongporn Pongpinyopap,Navapong Anantavorasakul,Chairoj Uerpairojkit

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2022.01.014

Abstract:Purpose: The objective of this study was to report the functional outcomes and factors affecting the result of intercostal nerves transfer to the radial nerve branch to the long head triceps muscle for restoration of elbow extension in patients with total brachial plexus palsy or C5 to C7 palsy with the loss of triceps muscle function. Methods: Fifty-five patients with total brachial plexus palsy or C5 to C7 palsy with no triceps muscle function had a reconstruction of elbow extension by transferring the third to fifth intercostal nerves to the radial nerve branch to the long head triceps muscle. The functional outcomes determined by the Medical Research Council grading were evaluated. Factors influencing the outcomes were determined using logistic regression analysis. Results: At the follow-up of at least 2 years, 36 patients (65%) had antigravity motor function (Medical Research Council grade, ≥3). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the body mass index, time to surgery, and injury of the dominant limb were associated with the outcome. Conclusions: The third to fifth intercostal nerves transfer to the radial nerve branch to the long head triceps muscle is an effective procedure to restore elbow extension. We would recommend using 3 intercostal nerves without grafts; in cases of nerve root avulsion in which there is no chance of spontaneous recovery, early surgery should be considered. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic IV.
Reinnervation of the biceps in C5-7 brachial plexus avulsion injuries: results after distal bypass surgery

Stefano Ferraresi,Debora Garozzo,Paolo Buffatti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2004.16.5.7

2004-05-15

Abstract:Object: The authors report various techniques, and their results, after performing median and ulnar nerve transfers to reanimate the biceps muscle in C5-7 avulsion-related brachial plexus injuries (BPIs). Methods: Forty-three adult patients with BPIs of the upper-middle plexus underwent reinnervation of the biceps muscle; neurotization of the musculocutaneous nerve was performed using fascicles from the ulnar nerve (39 cases) and the median nerve (four cases). The different techniques included sectioning, rerouting, and direct suturing of the entire musculocutaneous nerve (35 cases); direct reinnervation of the motor branches of the musculocutaneous nerve (three cases); and reinnervation using small grafts to the motor fascicles that enter the biceps muscle (five cases). Elbow flexion recovery ranged from M2 to M4, according to the patient's age and the level of integrity of the hand. No surgery-related failure occurred. No significant difference in outcome was related to any of the technical variants. In patients younger than age 45 years and exhibiting a normal hand function a score of M4 or better was always achieved. On average, reinnervation occurred 6 months after surgery. There was no clinical evidence of donor nerve dysfunction. Conclusions: When accurate selection criteria are met, the results after this type of neurotization have proved excellent.
Reliability of functioning free muscle transfer and vascularized ulnar nerve grafting for elbow flexion in complete brachial plexus palsy

S. M. Potter,S. I. Ferris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193417702029

2017-04-07

Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)

Abstract:We compared outcomes of primary vascularized ulnar nerve grafts from the C5 root neurotizing biceps and brachialis muscles, and gracilis functioning free muscle transfer neurotized by the distal spinal accessory nerve, as a primary or salvage procedure after complete brachial plexus injury. At 45 months, three of eight primary vascularized ulnar nerve graft patients regained grade 4 elbow flexion, while one regained grade 3. All 13 primary gracilis transfer patients regained grade 4 elbow flexion. Four patients with vascularized ulnar nerve grafts failed and subsequently had salvage functioning free muscle transfer procedures resulting in delayed recovery. Although vascularized ulnar nerve graft-based primary reconstructions can provide useful elbow flexion, this was achieved in less than half the cases. We consider primary gracilis functioning free muscle transfer neurotized by the distal spinal accessory nerve as the most reliable reconstruction for the restoration of elbow flexion in complete brachial plexus injury. Level of evidence: IV
Restoration of elbow and hand function in total brachial plexus palsy with intercostal nerves and C5 root neurotization. Results in 21 patients

M Arnal,A Cambon,P-S Marcheix,Z Belkhayar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hansur.2016.05.006

Abstract:Consensus opinion is that active movement of the elbow is a priority in the surgical treatment of total brachial plexus injuries. But the indications and neurotization techniques used to restore motor function of the hand are the subject of discussion. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate, in adult patients with complete post-traumatic paralysis of the brachial plexus, the functional results of neurotization of four intercostal nerves on the musculocutaneous nerve and grafting of the C5 root by one strand on the nerve to the long head of triceps and three strands on the medial component of the median nerve. The cohort included 21 patients (mean age 21years). The average time between the trauma and surgical treatment was 4.8months. At a mean follow-up of 22months, 67% of patients achieved≥M3 elbow flexion, and 62% achieved≥M3 active elbow extension. Of the patients who had the required follow-up of 2years to assess motor recovery of the median nerve, 40% achieved function≥M3. Based on our results, use of the C5 root is suitable for surgically restoring elbow extension and finger flexion.
Combined nerve transfers for repair of the upper brachial plexus injuries through a posterior approach.

Jiuzhou Lu,Jianguang Xu,Wendong Xu,Lei Xu,Yousheng Fang,Liang Chen,Yudong Gu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.20962

2012-01-01

Microsurgery

Abstract:The upper brachial plexus injury leads to paralysis of muscles innervated by C5 and C6 nerve roots. In this report, we present our experience on the use of the combined nerve transfers for reconstruction of the upper brachial plexus injury. Nine male patients with the upper brachial plexus injury were treated with combined nerve transfers. The time interval between injury and surgery ranged from 3 to 11 months (average, 7 months). The combined nerve transfers include fascicles of the ulnar nerve and/or the median nerve transfer to the biceps and/or the brachialis motor branch, and the spinal accessory nerve (SAN) to the suprascapular nerve (SSN) and triceps branches to the axillary nerve through a posterior approach. At an average of 33 months of follow-up, all patients recovered the full range of the elbow flexion. Six out of nine patients were able to perform the normal range of shoulder abduction with the strength degraded to M3 or M4. These results showed that the technique of the combined nerve transfers, specifically the SAN to the SSN and triceps branches to the axillary nerve through a posterior approach, may be a valuable alternative in the repair of the upper brachial plexus injury. Further evaluations of this technique are necessary. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery, 2012.
Antibody to hepatitis C virus in acute, self-limited, type B hepatitis.

M. Rodriguez,A. Suárez,R. Cimadevilla,S. Riestra,C. Navascués,P. Sala,L. Rodrigo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-5633-9_73

Abstract:
Contralateral C7 Transfer via Both Vascularized Ulnar Nerve and Medial Antebrachial Cutaneous Nerve With the Ulnar Artery Anastomosed to the Arteria transversa Colli to Repair Brachial Plexus Avulsion: A Preliminary Report

Li Shulin,Xu Lei,Gu Yudong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944716660555yy

2016-01-01

HAND

Abstract:Background: Contralateral C7 nerve transfer to the median nerve has been used in an attempt to restore finger flexion in patients with total brachial plexus avulsion injury. However, the results have not been satisfactory mainly because of the requirement to use a long bridging nerve graft, which causes an extended nerve regeneration process and irreversible muscle atrophy. A new procedure involving contralateral C7 nerve transfer via both vascularized ulnar nerve and medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve with the ulnar artery anastomosed to the arteria transversa colli is presented here. Methods: It was performed in 25 patients with total brachial plexus avulsion injury. Contralateral C7 nerve root was coapted to the distal end of the ipsilateral vascularized ulnar nerve and medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve with the ulnar artery is anastomosed to the arteria transversa colli. The ulnar nerve was secured to the median nerve, and medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve was used to repair musculocutaneous nerve. Electromyography and ultrasonography were used to evaluate the early recovery. Recovery of finger, wrist, and elbow flexion was evaluated with the use of the modified British Medical Research Council muscle grading system. Results: Electromyography showed the early recovery by 3 months postoperatively, and smooth blood flow at the anastomotic stoma can be seen through ultrasound. The mean follow-up period (and standard deviation) was 20 ± 6 months. Motor function with a grade of M3+ or greater was attained in 60% of the patients for elbow flexion, 64% of the patients for finger flexion, 53% of the patients for thumb flexion, and 72% of the patients for wrist flexion. Conclusions: Contralateral C7 nerve transfer via both vascularized ulnar nerve and medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve with the ulnar artery anastomosed to the arteria transversa colli speeds up the nerve regeneration in patients with total brachial plexus avulsion injury and improve the utilization of contralateral C7 fiber. There was satisfactory recovery of finger flexion and wrist flexion in this series.

[Salads in hospitals--a source of infections?].

Elbow flexion reconstruction with nerve transfer or grafting in patients with brachial plexus injuries: A systematic review and comparison study

Comparative Study of Intercostal Nerve and Contralateral C7 Nerve Transfers for Elbow Extension after Global Brachial Plexus Avulsion

Intercostal Nerve Transfers to Native Triceps or Free Muscle Flaps for Elbow Extension in Brachial Plexus Injuries

Evaluation of Nerve Transfer Options for Treating Total Brachial Plexus Avulsion Injury: A Retrospective Study of 73 Participants.

Intercostal nerve transfer to neurotize the musculocutaneous nerve after traumatic brachial plexus avulsion: a comparison of two, three, and four nerve transfers.

Comparative study of phrenic and partial ulnar nerve transfers for elbow flexion after upper brachial plexus avulsion: A retrospective clinical analysis.

Comparative Study of Phrenic and Intercostal Nerve Transfers for Elbow Flexion after Global Brachial Plexus Injury.

Intercostal Nerve Transfer for Biceps Reinnervation in Obstetrical Brachial Plexus Palsy: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Individual Patient Data Systematic Review using Individualized Fusion and Comparison to Supraclavicular Exploration and Nerve Grafting

Distal nerve transfer versus supraclavicular nerve grafting: comparison of elbow flexion outcome in neonatal brachial plexus palsy with C5-C7 involvement

Long-term results of intercostal nerve transfer to triceps branch of the radial nerve

Phrenic Nerve Transfer for Elbow Flexion and Intercostal Nerve Transfer for Elbow Extension.

The Surgical Strategy for the Treatment of Total Brachial Plexus Avulsion Injury Patient

Outcome of Contralateral C7 Transfer to Two Recipient Nerves in 22 Patients with the Total Brachial Plexus Avulsion Injury

The Intercostal Nerves Transfer to the Radial Nerve Branch to the Long Head Triceps Muscle: Influencing Factor and Outcome of 55 Cases

Reinnervation of the biceps in C5-7 brachial plexus avulsion injuries: results after distal bypass surgery

Reliability of functioning free muscle transfer and vascularized ulnar nerve grafting for elbow flexion in complete brachial plexus palsy

Restoration of elbow and hand function in total brachial plexus palsy with intercostal nerves and C5 root neurotization. Results in 21 patients

Combined nerve transfers for repair of the upper brachial plexus injuries through a posterior approach.

Antibody to hepatitis C virus in acute, self-limited, type B hepatitis.

Contralateral C7 Transfer via Both Vascularized Ulnar Nerve and Medial Antebrachial Cutaneous Nerve With the Ulnar Artery Anastomosed to the Arteria transversa Colli to Repair Brachial Plexus Avulsion: A Preliminary Report