Double Distal Intraneural Fascicular Nerve Transfers for Lower Brachial Plexus Injuries

Volar versus dorsal approach for supinator to posterior interosseous nerve transfer: An anatomical study in cadavers

INTRODUCTION

Supinator to posterior interosseous nerve (SPIN) transfer allows reconstruction of finger/thumb extension and thumb abduction for low radial nerve palsy, incomplete C6 tetraplegia, and brachial plexus injury affecting C7-T1. No study has compared dorsal versus volar approach to perform SPIN transfer. This comparison is studied in the present work, assessing supinator motor branch length and ability to achieve nerve transfer from either approach.

METHODS

Ten fresh frozen cadavers were randomly allocated to receive either a dorsal or volar approach to PIN and supinator radial and ulnar branches (RB = radial, UB = ulnar). Supinator head innervation patterns were documented. RB and UB lengths, forearm lengths measured from ulnar styloid to olecranon, visualization of extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) motor nerve without additional dissection, and ability to perform tension-free nerve transfer were assessed.

RESULTS

Nine of 10 specimens had supinator branches innervating both heads. The ECRB nerve was visualized in all volar but only one dorsal approach. No significant differences in forearm length were found. Volar with elbow extended: mean RB length was 35 ± 7.8 mm and UB was 37.8 ± 9.3 mm. Dorsal with elbow extended: mean RB length was 30 ± 4.1 mm and UB was 38.8 ± 7.3 mm. Dorsal with elbow flexed 90°: RB was 25.6 ± 3.8 mm and UB was 34.8 ± 4.8 mm. No significant differences were found in branch lengths between approaches (dorsal vs. volar UB, p = .339; dorsal vs. volar RB, p = .117). All limbs achieved tension-free coaptation.

CONCLUSION

Neither approach demonstrated superiority in achieving tension-free nerve transfer. Volar permitted immediate identification of ECRB nerve whereas this was only visualized in one dorsal specimen without additional dissection. Overall, the volar approach allows direct coaptation in elbow extension, mimicking maximal physiologic tension for neurorrhaphy. It simultaneously permits additional procedures for pinch reconstruction via single exposure, circumventing limb/microscope maneuvering, dorsal dissection, and increased operative time. Ultimate choice of approach should depend on surgeon familiarity and potential need for additional simultaneous transfers.

Combined Nerve and Tendon Transfers for C7-T1 Brachial Plexus Avulsion Injury

BACKGROUND

In patients with C7-T1 brachial plexus avulsions, complete loss of hand function is commonly seen. However, the reconstruction of hand function is difficult.

OBJECTIVE

To report the outcomes of hand function recovery after combined nerve and tendon transfers in C7-T1 brachial plexus injury.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2019, 8 patients with C7-T1 brachial plexus injury underwent combined nerve and tendon transfers for hand function restoration, which included the following: (1) the pronator teres motor branch to the anterior interosseous nerve and brachialis motor branch to the flexor digitorum superficialis branch for finger flexion, (2) the supinator motor branch to the posterior interosseous nerve for finger extension, (3) the brachioradialis tendon transfer for thumb opposition, and (4) the radial branch of the superficial radial nerve to the sensory branch of the ulnar nerve for sensory reconstruction. Patients were evaluated for functional improvement of finger flexion, finger extension, thumb opposition, and sensory recovery.

RESULTS

No clinical donor deficits were observed. Seven of eight patients recovered finger and thumb flexion (4 patients scored British Medical Research Council grade M4 and 3 scored M3). The average grip strength was 3.4 kg. All patients regained finger extension (4 scored M4 and 4 scored M3), thumb opposition, and protective sensation on the ulnar hand. Patients were able to use their reconstructed hands in daily lives.

CONCLUSION

Combined nerve and tendon transfers are reliable and effective. This strategy could be an option for hand function reconstruction after C7-T1 brachial plexus injury.

Patterns of median nerve branching in the cubital fossa: implications for nerve transfers to restore motor function in a paralyzed upper limb

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the anatomy of donor and recipient median nerve motor branches for nerve transfer surgery within the cubital fossa.

METHODS

Bilateral upper limbs of 10 fresh cadavers were dissected after dyed latex was injected into the axillary artery.

RESULTS

In the cubital fossa, the first branch was always the proximal branch of the pronator teres (PPT), whereas the last one was the anterior interosseous nerve (AIN) and the distal motor branch of the flexor digitorum superficialis (DFDS) on a consistent basis. The PT muscle was also innervated by a distal branch (DPT), which emerged from the anterior side of the median nerve and provided innervation to its deep head. The palmaris longus (PL) motor branch was always the second branch after the PPT, emerging as a single branch together with the flexor carpi radialis (FCR) or the proximal branch of the flexor digitorum superficialis. The FCR motor branch was prone to variations. It originated proximally with the PL branch (35%) or distally with the AIN (35%), and less frequently from the DPT. In 40% of dissections, the FDS was innervated by a single branch (i.e., the DFDS) originating close to the AIN. In 60% of cases, a proximal branch originated together with the PL or FCR. The AIN emerged from the posterior side of the median nerve and had a diameter of 2.3 mm, twice that of other branches. When dissections were performed between the PT and FCR muscles at the FDS arcade, we observed the AIN lying lateral and the DFDS medial to the median nerve. After crossing the FDS arcade, the AIN divided into: 1) a lateral branch to the flexor pollicis longus (FPL), which bifurcated to reach the anterior and posterior surfaces of the FPL; 2) a medial branch, which bifurcated to reach the flexor digitorum profundus (FDP); and 3) a long middle branch to the pronator quadratus. The average numbers of myelinated fibers within each median nerve branch were as follows (values expressed as the mean ± SD): PPT 646 ± 249; DPT 599 ± 150; PL 259 ± 105; FCR 541 ± 199; proximal FDS 435 ± 158; DFDS 376 ± 150; FPL 480 ± 309; first branch to the FDP 397 ± 12; and second branch to the FDP 369 ± 33.

CONCLUSIONS

The median nerve's branching pattern in the cubital fossa is predictable. The most important variation involves the FCR motor branch. These anatomical findings aid during nerve transfer surgery to restore function when paralysis results from injury to the radial or median nerves, brachial plexus, or spinal cord.

Innervation Patterns of the Pronator Teres Muscle and Their Possible Role in Neurotization: A Systematic Review of Cadaveric Studies

BACKGROUND

Contrary to the classic anatomical description, many recent studies have reported wide variations in branching patterns and location of motor branches that are supplying the pronator teres muscle. To understand these variations and their implications in surgical procedures of the nerve transfers, a systematic review was performed on the innervation of pronator teres muscle from cadaveric studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in databases such as Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, SciELO, ScienceDirect, Cochrane reviews and orthopedics textbooks using the search terms "pronator teres nerve branches"; AND "number" OR "location" OR "length" OR "diameter" yielded 545 article links. Articles were evaluated according to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of twenty cadaveric studies including 648 branches have registered 52.9% of two branch innervation pattern followed by 31.3%-single branch pattern; 13.5%-three branch pattern; 1.7%-four branch pattern, and 0.4%-five branch patterns, respectively. Of the 403 branches studied for their location in relation with the humeral intercondylar line, most branches were located distal to the line (50.3%), followed by 32.7% (proximal to it) and 16.8% at the line, respectively. The distance of branches located proximal and distal to humeral intercondylar line was in the range of 1.25-10 cm, and 1.1-7.5 cm, respectively. The mean length and diameter of nerves reported were 4.37 ± 2.43 cm, and 1.5 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data defined the morphometrics of nerve branches and they often met the required diameter for neurotization procedures. Our findings also demonstrated that the morphometrics, branching pattern and their location vary between populations and this information is very vital for surgeons during the nerve transfers.

Distal pronator teres motor branch transfer for wrist extension restoration in radial nerve paralysis

OBJECTIVE

The authors describe the anatomy of the motor branches of the pronator teres (PT) as it relates to transferring the nerve of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) to restore wrist extension in patients with radial nerve paralysis. They describe their anatomical cadaveric findings and report the results of their nerve transfer technique in several patients followed for at least 24 months postoperatively.

METHODS

The authors dissected both upper limbs of 16 fresh cadavers. In 6 patients undergoing nerve surgery on the elbow, they dissected the branches of the median nerve and confirmed their identity by electrical stimulation. Of these 6 patients, 5 had had a radial nerve injury lasting 7-12 months, underwent transfer of the distal PT motor branch to the ECRB, and were followed for at least 24 months.

RESULTS

The PT was innervated by two branches: a proximal branch, arising at a distance between 0 and 40 mm distal to the medial epicondyle, responsible for PT superficial head innervation, and a distal motor branch, emerging from the anterior side of the median nerve at a distance between 25 and 60 mm distal to the medial epicondyle. The distal motor branch of the PT traveled approximately 30 mm along the anterior side of the median nerve; just before the median nerve passed between the PT heads, it bifurcated to innervate the deep head and distal part of the superficial head of the PT. In 30% of the cadaver limbs, the proximal and distal PT branches converged into a single trunk distal to the medial epicondyle, while they converged into a single branch proximal to it in 70% of the limbs. The proximal and distal motor branches of the PT and the nerve to the ECRB had an average of 646, 599, and 457 myelinated fibers, respectively.All patients recovered full range of wrist flexion-extension, grade M4 strength on the British Medical Research Council scale. Grasp strength recovery achieved almost 50% of the strength of the contralateral side. All patients could maintain their wrist in extension while performing grasp measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The distal PT motor branch is suitable for reinnervation of the ECRB in radial nerve paralysis, for as long as 7-12 months postinjury.

Transfer of the Distal Anterior Interosseous Nerve for Thumb Motion Reconstruction in Radial Nerve Paralysis

PURPOSE

With nerve or tendon surgery, the results of thumb reconstruction to treat radial nerve paralysis are suboptimal. The goals of this study were to describe the anatomy of the deep branch of the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) to the thumb extensor muscles (DBPIN), and to report the clinical results of transferring the distal anterior interosseous nerve (DAIN) to the DBPIN.

METHODS

The PIN was dissected in 12 fresh upper limbs. Myelinated nerve fibers in the DBPIN and DAIN were counted. Five patients with radial nerve paralysis underwent transfer of the motor branch to the flexor carpi radialis to the PIN and a motor branch of the pronator teres to the extensor carpi radialis brevis. In addition, these patients had selective reconstruction of thumb motion by transferring the DAIN to the DBPIN, through either a combined volar and dorsal approach (n = 2) or a single dorsal approach (n = 3) with division of the interosseous membrane.

RESULTS

At the origin of the abductor pollicis longus, the DBPIN divided into a lateral branch that innervated the abductor pollicis longus and extensor pollicis brevis, and a medial branch that innervated the extensor pollicis longus and extensor index proprius. The number of myelinated nerve fibers in the DAIN corresponded to 65% of that of the DBPIN. In each of the 5 patients, full thumb motion at the trapeziometacarpal joint was restored with no, or minimal, extension lag at the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint.

CONCLUSIONS

The anatomy of the DBPIN is predictable. Transferring the DAIN to the DBPIN is feasible through a single dorsal approach, allowing full recovery of thumb motion.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic V.

Reconstruction of a C7-T1 brachial plexus lower root injury by transferring multiple nerves and a free gracilis muscle: Case report

Lower-type brachial plexus injuries (BPI) are uncommon, and traditional reconstruction with tendon transfer procedures generally produce mediocre results. However, the advent of nerve transfers has rejuvenated the reconstructive options for peripheral nerve and spinal cord injuries. In this paper, we report the case 32 year-old patient with a C7-T1 avulsion BPI in whom multiple motor and sensory nerve transfers, combined with a free gracilis muscle flap transfer, were used to restore upper-limb functional defects. Five months after injury, several nerves were transferred (posterior division of the axillary nerve to motor nerve branches of the triceps, extensor carpi radialis brevis to flexor pollicis longus, supinator to the posterior interosseous nerve, brachialis to the ulnar nerve, and a cutaneous branch to the palm of the median nerve to the ulnar proper palmar digital nerve of the little finger). No complications occurred. M4 strength elbow extension, complete active finger extension and ulnar protective sensation were obtained. However, unsuccessful finger flexion reconstruction required a free gracilis muscle flap transfer motorized by the distal branch of the pronator teres, performed 43 months after the first surgery and resulting in complete finger flexion. Multiple nerve transfers might be a valid strategy for reconstructing lower BPIs, either in their early or late stage, which might be combined with a free gracilis muscle flap transfer.

Comparative study of pronator teres branch transfer and brachialis motor branch transfer to the anterior interosseous nerve to treat lower brachial plexus injury in rats

Distal nerve transfer is used to treat lower brachial plexus palsy, but outcome series on these transfer procedures following lower plexus injuries are sparse. The objective of this study is to compare treatment outcomes after nerve transfer using the brachialis motor branch (BMB) versus that using the pronator teres motor branch (PTMB). One hundred twenty adult rats with C8T1 nerve root avulsion were randomly divided into three groups (40 each): A: BMB transfer to the anterior interosseous nerve (AIN), B: PTMB transfer to the AIN, and C: no repair. Electrophysiological examination result, muscle tension test result, muscle weight and muscle fiber cross-sectional area of the flexor digitorum profundus and flexor pollicis longus, and number of myelinated nerve fibers in the AIN were compared among the groups to evaluate the treatment outcome. Nerve regeneration and muscle recovery in group B was better than those in group A at 4 and 8 weeks postoperatively (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the myelinated nerve fibers in groups A and B at 12 and 16 weeks postoperatively. The rats in group B showed greater and more significant improvement in other measured values than those in group A (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the PTMB seems a better donor nerve than the BMB for distal nerve transfer to treat lower brachial plexus injury according to the electrophysiological and histological examination in this rat study.

Anatomical Study of Innervation of the Supinator Muscle to Reinnervate the Posterior Interosseous Nerve

Objective  The purpose of this anatomical study was to analyze the possibility of transferring radial nerve branches to the supinator muscle to reinnervate the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) originating from the C7–T1 roots.

Methods  Thirty members of 15 cadavers, all male, prepared with an intra-arterial glycerol and formaldehyde solution injection, were dissected.

Results  All dissected limbs presented at least one branch intended for the superficial and the deep heads of the supinator muscle. These branches originated from the PIN. A branch to the supinator muscle, proximal to the arcade of Frohse, was identified in six members. In addition, 2 and 3 branches to the supinator muscle were found in 11 and 4 members, respectively. In two limbs, only one branch detached from the PIN, but it duplicated itself proximal to the arcade of Frohse. Seven limbs had no branches to the supinator muscle at the region proximal to the arcade of Frohse. The branches destined for the supinator muscle were sectioned at the neuromuscular junction for connection with no tension to the PIN. The combined diameter of the branches for the supinator muscle corresponded, on average, to 53.5% of the PIN diameter.

Conclusion  The radial nerve branches intended for the supinator muscle can be transferred, with no tension, directly to the PIN to restore thumb and finger extension in patients with C7–T1 brachial plexus lesions.