2002PubMedRequires access

Nerve transfer for treatment of brachial plexus injury: comparison study between the transfer of partial median and ulnar nerves and that of phrenic and spinal accessary nerves.

Zhi-qi Hou, Zhong-he Xu

Open publisher page 39 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of using partial median and ulnar nerves for treatment of C(5-6) or C(5-7) avulsion of the brachial plexus with that of using phrenic and spinal accessary nerves. METHODS: The patients were divided into 2 groups randomly according to different surgical procedures. Twelve cases were involved in the first group. The phrenic nerve was transferred to the musculocutaneous nerve or through a sural nerve graft, and the spinal accessary nerve was to the suprascapular nerve. Eleven cases were classified into the second group. A part of the fascicles of median nerve was transferred to be coapted with the motor fascicle of musculocutaneous nerve and a part of fascicles of ulnar nerve was transferred to the axillary nerve. The cases were followed up from 1 to 3 years and the clinical outcome was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were 2 cases (16.6%) who got the recovery of M4 strength of biceps muscle in the first group but 7 cases (63.6%) in the second group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.025). However, it was not statistically different in the recovery of shoulder function between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Partial median and ulnar nerve transfer, phrenic and spinal accessary nerve transfer were all effective for the reconstruction of elbow or shoulder function in brachial plexus injury, but the neurotization using a part of median nerve could obtain more powerful biceps muscle strength than that of phrenic nerve transfer procedure.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of using partial median and ulnar nerves for treatment of C(5-6) or C(5-7) avulsion of the brachial plexus with that of using phrenic and spinal accessary nerves. METHODS: The patients were divided into 2 groups randomly according to different surgical procedures. Twelve cases were involved in the first group. The phrenic nerve was transferred to the musculocutaneous nerve or through a sural nerve graft, and the spinal accessary nerve was to the suprascapular nerve. Eleven cases were classified into the second group. A part of the fascicles of median nerve was transferred to be coapted with the motor fascicle of musculocutaneous nerve and a part of fascicles of ulnar nerve was transferred to the axillary nerve. The cases were followed up from 1 to 3 years and the clinical outcome was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were 2 cases (16.6%) who got the recovery of M4 strength of biceps muscle in the first group but 7 cases (63.6%) in the second group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.025). However, it was not statistically different in the recovery of shoulder function between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Partial median and ulnar nerve transfer, phrenic and spinal accessary nerve transfer were all effective for the reconstruction of elbow or shoulder function in brachial plexus injury, but the neurotization using a part of median nerve could obtain more powerful biceps muscle strength than that of phrenic nerve transfer procedure.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 39 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of using partial median and ulnar nerves for treatment of C(5-6) or C(5-7) avulsion of the brachial plexus with that of using phrenic and spinal accessary nerves. METHODS: The patients were divided into 2 groups randomly according to different surgical procedures. Twelve cases were involved in the first group. The phrenic nerve was transferred to the musculocutaneous nerve or through a sural nerve graft, and the spinal accessary nerve was to the suprascapular nerve. Eleven cases were classified into the second group. A part of the fascicles of median nerve was transferred to be coapted with the motor fascicle of musculocutaneous nerve and a part of fascicles of ulnar nerve was transferred to the axillary nerve. The cases were followed up from 1 to 3 years and the clinical outcome was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were 2 cases (16.6%) who got the recovery of M4 strength of biceps muscle in the first group but 7 cases (63.6%) in the second group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.025). However, it was not statistically different in the recovery of shoulder function between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Partial median and ulnar nerve transfer, phrenic and spinal accessary nerve transfer were all effective for the reconstruction of elbow or shoulder function in brachial plexus injury, but the neurotization using a part of median nerve could obtain more powerful biceps muscle strength than that of phrenic nerve transfer procedure.

Key concepts: Medicine, Musculocutaneous nerve, Brachial plexus, Ulnar nerve, Phrenic nerve, Biceps, Sural nerve, Axillary nerve

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Nerve transfer for treatment of brachial plexus injury: comparison study between the transfer of partial median and ulnar nerves and that of phrenic and spinal accessary nerves. — Research Paper | ScholarLens