Thoracodorsal nerve transfer for elbow flexion reconstruction in infraclavicular brachial plexus injuries

Distal nerve transfers for peripheral nerve injuries: indications and outcomes

Distal nerve transfer is a refined surgical technique involving the redirection of healthy sacrificable nerves from one part of the body to reinstate function in another area afflicted by paralysis or injury. This approach is particularly valuable when the original nerves are extensively damaged and standard repair methods, such as direct suturing or grafting, may be insufficient. As the nerve coaptation is close to the recipient muscles or skin, distal nerve transfers reduce the time to reinnervation. The harvesting of nerves for transfer should usually result in minimal or no donor morbidity, as any anticipated loss of function is compensated for by adjacent muscles or overlapping cutaneous territory. Recent years have witnessed notable progress in nerve transfer procedures, markedly enhancing the outcomes of upper limb reconstruction for conditions encompassing peripheral nerve, brachial plexus and spinal cord injuries.

The Effectiveness of Different Nerve Transfers in the Restoration of Elbow Flexion in Adults Following Brachial Plexus Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Restoration of elbow flexion is an important goal in the treatment of patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury. Numerous studies have described various nerve transfers for neurotization of the musculocutaneous nerve (or its motor branches); however, there is uncertainty over the effectiveness of each method. The aim of this study was to summarize the published evidence in adults with traumatic brachial plexus injury.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, medRxiv, and bioRxiv were systematically searched from inception to April 12, 2021. We included studies that reported the outcomes of nerve transfers for the restoration of elbow flexion in adults. The primary outcome was elbow flexion of grade 4 (M4) or higher on the British Medical Research Council scale. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses, and heterogeneity was explored using metaregression. Confidence intervals (CIs) were generated to the 95% level.

RESULTS

We included 64 articles, which described 13 different nerve transfers. There were 1,335 adults, of whom 813 (61%) had partial and 522 (39%) had pan-plexus injuries. Overall, 75% of the patients with partial brachial plexus injuries achieved ≥M4 (CI, 69%-80%), and the choice of donor nerve was associated with clinically meaningful differences in the outcome. Of the patients with pan-plexus injuries, 45% achieved ≥M4 (CI, 31%-60%), and overall, each month delay from the time of injury to reconstruction reduced the probability of achieving ≥M4 by 7% (CI, 1%-12%).

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of donor nerve affects the chance of attaining a British Medical Research Council score of ≥4 in upper-trunk reconstruction. For patients with pan-plexus injuries, delay in neurotization may be detrimental to motor outcomes.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Nerve Transfers for Elbow Reconstruction in Upper and Extended Upper-Type Brachial Plexus Injuries: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Nerve transfers for elbow flexion in brachial plexus injuries have been used with increasing frequency because of the higher rate of success and acceptable morbidity. This is especially true in upper and extended upper-type brachial plexus injuries.

OBJECTIVE

To present the clinical outcomes of nerve transfers for elbow flexion in patients with upper and extended upper-type brachial plexus injuries.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort review was done on all patients with upper and extended upper-type brachial plexus injuries from 2006 to 2017, who underwent nerve transfers for the restoration of elbow flexion. Outcome variables include Filipino version of the disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand (FIL-DASH) score, elbow flexion strength and range of motion, and pain. All statistical significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients with nerve transfers to restore elbow flexion were included. There was a significant improvement in FIL-DASH scores in 28 patients after the nerve transfer procedure. Patients with C56 nerve root injuries and those with more than 2 years' follow-up have a higher percentage of regaining ≥M4 elbow flexion strength. Those with double nerve transfers had a higher percentage of ≥M4 elbow flexion strength, greater range of elbow flexion, and better FIL-DASH scores compared with single nerve transfers, but this did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Nerve transfer procedures improve FIL-DASH scores in upper and upper-type brachial plexus injuries. After nerve transfer, stronger elbow flexion can be expected in patients with C56 injuries, and those with longer follow-up.

Transfer of a Radial Nerve Branch to the Brachialis Nerve for Restoration of Elbow Flexion

Nerve transfers for brachial plexus reconstruction and the treatment of peripheral nerve injury have demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes and may be superior to nerve grafting. Previously described nerve transfers for restoration of elbow flexion include the Oberlin (ulnar to musculocutaneous) and double fasicular (median to biceps and ulnar to brachialis) transfers. However, these transfers cannot be performed in patients with loss of elbow flexion and concomitant high median and ulnar nerve injury. Other transfers utilizing the thoracodorsal or intercostal nerves have been described; however, this requires sacrifice of the latissimus dorsi muscle or potential nerve donors for a free, functioning gracilis muscle transfer. The triceps lower medial head and anconeus motor branch is a frequently used nerve donor with minimal morbidity. As an alternative for this specific patient population, we report the transfer of the triceps lower medial head and anconeus motor branch to the brachialis nerve as an option to restore elbow flexion.

Algorithm for bionic hand reconstruction in patients with global brachial plexopathies

OBJECTIVE Global brachial plexus lesions with multiple root avulsions are among the most severe nerve injuries, leading to lifelong disability. Fortunately, in most cases primary and secondary reconstructions provide a stable shoulder and restore sufficient arm function. Restoration of biological hand function, however, remains a reconstructive goal that is difficult to reach. The recently introduced concept of bionic reconstruction overcomes biological limitations of classic reconstructive surgery to restore hand function by combining selective nerve and muscle transfers with elective amputation of the functionless hand and its replacement with a prosthetic device. The authors present their treatment algorithm for bionic hand reconstruction and report on the management and long-term functional outcomes of patients with global brachial plexopathies who have undergone this innovative treatment. METHODS Thirty-four patients with posttraumatic global brachial plexopathies leading to loss of hand function consulted the Center for Advanced Restoration of Extremity Function between 2011 and 2015. Of these patients, 16 (47%) qualified for bionic reconstruction due to lack of treatment alternatives. The treatment algorithm included progressive steps with the intent of improving the biotechnological interface to allow optimal prosthetic hand replacement. In 5 patients, final functional outcome measurements were obtained with the Action Arm Research Test (ARAT), the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. RESULTS In all 5 patients who completed functional assessments, partial hand function was restored with bionic reconstruction. ARAT scores improved from 3.4 ± 4.3 to 25.4 ± 12.7 (p = 0.043; mean ± SD) and SHAP scores improved from 10.0 ± 1.6 to 55 ± 19.7 (p = 0.042). DASH scores decreased from 57.9 ± 20.6 to 32 ± 28.6 (p = 0.042), indicating decreased disability. CONCLUSIONS The authors present an algorithm for bionic reconstruction leading to useful hand function in patients who lack biological treatment alternatives for a stiff, functionless, and insensate hand resulting from global brachial plexopathies.

Nerve Transfers to Restore Elbow Function

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the various nerve transfer options for restoration of elbow function. This article describes nerve transfer strategies for elbow flexion and extension including the indications, limitations, and expected outcomes based on current literature.

Effect of Collateral Sprouting on Donor Nerve Function After Nerve Coaptation: A Study of the Brachial Plexus

Background

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the donor nerve from the C7 spinal nerve of the rabbit brachial plexus after a coaptation procedure. Assessment was performed of avulsion of the C5 and C6 spinal nerves treated by coaptation of these nerves to the C7 spinal nerve.

Material/Methods

After nerve injury, fourteen rabbits were treated by end-to-side coaptation (ETS), and fourteen animals were treated by side-to-side coaptation (STS) on the right brachial plexus. Electrophysiological and histomorphometric analyses and the skin pinch test were used to evaluate the outcomes.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in the G-ratio proximal and distal to the coaptation in the ETS group, but the differences in the axon, myelin sheath and fiber diameters were statistically significant. The comparison of the ETS and STS groups distal to the coaptation with the controls demonstrated statistically significant differences in the fiber, axon, and myelin sheath diameters. With respect to the G-ratio, the ETS group exhibited no significant differences relative to the control, whereas the G-ratio in the STS group and the controls differed significantly. In the electrophysiological study, the ETS and STS groups exhibited major changes in the biceps and subscapularis muscles.

Conclusions

The coaptation procedure affects the histological structure of the nerve donor, but it does not translate into changes in nerve conduction or the sensory function of the limb. The donor nerve lesion in the ETS group is transient and has minimal clinical relevance.

Motor Nerve Transfers

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.

Thoracodorsal nerve transfer for triceps reinnervation in partial brachial plexus injuries

PURPOSE

To report the clinical outcomes of thoracodorsal nerve (TDN) transfers to the triceps motor branches for elbow extension restoration in patients with partial brachial plexus injuries (BPI).

METHODS

Eight male patients of mean age 23 years and suffering from a partial BPI underwent direct coaptation of the TDN to the nerve of the upper medial and long heads of the triceps, an average 6 months after their accident.

RESULTS

Seven patients achieved M4 elbow extension strength and one patient M3, according to the BMRC scale, after a mean follow-up of 21 months.

DISCUSSION

Direct TDN transfer might be a valid surgical procedure for the restoration of elbow extension in patients with partial BPI.