Zhiqi Hou1, Zhonghe Xu. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, First Hospital of Guangzhou City, Affiliated Guangzhou Medical College, Guangzhou 510180, China. smilehou@sina.com.cn
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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Joseph H Miller; Sarah T Garber; Don E McCormick; Ramin Eskandari; Marion L Walker; Elias Rizk; R Shane Tubbs; John C Wellons Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2013-05-05 Impact factor: 1.475