Comparative study of single and dual nerve transfers for repairing shoulder abduction

Clinical assessment in brachial plexus injury surgery: systematic review and proposal for integrated evaluation among different medical departments

BACKGROUND

Brachial plexus injury (BPI) surgery involves diversity in surgical departments including plastic surgery, hand surgery, orthopedic surgery, and neurosurgery. There is a clear scarcity in terms of unified guidelines for outcome publications due to the absence of collaboration or consensus development between departments. This study aims to identify relevant clinical parameters and their standardized presentation to address this gap.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out to identify the clinical outcomes and methodological characteristics of the studies published regarding BPI surgery according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). Advanced search in PubMed was performed using the MeSH terms "Brachial Plexus Injury" (Major topic) AND "Surgery" (Subheading), obtaining a total of 2382 articles. Statistical analysis was performed, and the study was registered with the PROSPERO ID: CDR42022353785.

RESULTS

A total of 136 articles were included to the systematic review, and 11,949 patients were evaluated in different clinical outcomes according to the preferences of the authors. Traumatic events around the world are the most common cause of injury. The clinical components most reported were: British Medical Research Council in motor at 82.3%, visual analog scale in pain was 21.3%, sensitive components at 26.4%, and quality of life in 16.1% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of standardized clinical trials highlights the need to increase the level of evidence with the aim to identify clinical evaluations among all the diverse departments to provide optimal care for BPI treatment.

Repair methods in peripheral nerves after traumatic injuries: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

To identify and describe the most used surgical repair methods for traumatic injuries to peripheral nerves, as well as highlight the causes of trauma to peripheral nerves and the most prevalent traumatized nerves.

METHODS

This is a systematic literature review using the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The searches were carried out in PubMED, in the time window from January 2018 to December 2022.

RESULTS

In total, 3,687 articles were collected, of which, after applying the inclusion and exclusion filters and analyzing the risk of bias, 34 articles remained. It was observed that the age of the injury and type of nerve repair strongly influence the recovery of patients. The most identified trauma repair procedures were neurolysis, direct suturing, grafting, and nerve transfer. Among these four procedures, direct suturing is currently preferred.

CONCLUSION

Several repair methods can be used in peripheral nerve injuries, with emphasis on direct suturing. However, nerve transfer proves to be a differential in those cases in which repair is delayed or the first treatment options have failed, which shows that each method will be used according to the indication for each case.

Is there any difference between anterior and posterior approach for the spinal accessory to suprascapular nerve transfer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Dual nerve transfer of the spinal accessory nerve to the suprascapular nerve (SAN-SSN) and the radial nerve to the axillary nerve is considered to be the most feasible method of restoration of shoulder abduction in brachial plexus injuries. Supraspinatus muscle plays an important role in the initiation of abduction and its functional restoration is crucial for shoulder movements. There are two possible approaches for the SAN-SSN transfer: the more conventional anterior approach and the posterior approach in the area of scapular spine, which allows more distal neurotization. Although the dual nerve transfer is a widely used method, it is unclear which approach for the SAN-SSN transfer results in better outcomes. We conducted a search of English literature from January 2001 to December 2021 using the PRISMA guidelines. Twelve studies with a total 142 patients met our inclusion criteria. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the approach used: Group A included patients who underwent the anterior approach, and Group B included patients who underwent the posterior approach. Abduction strength using the Medical Research Scale (MRC) and range of motion (ROM) were assessed. The average MRC grade was 3.57 ± 1.08 in Group A and 4.0 ± 0.65 (p = 0.65) in Group B. The average ROM was 114.6 ± 36.7 degrees in Group A and 103.4 ± 37.2 degrees in Group B (p = 0.247). In conclusion, we did not find statistically significant differences between SAN-SSN transfers performed from the anterior or posterior approach in patients undergoing dual neurotization technique for restoration of shoulder abduction.

Possible donor nerves for axillary nerve reconstruction in dual neurotization for restoring shoulder abduction in brachial plexus injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Restoring shoulder abduction is one of the main priorities in the surgical treatment of brachial plexus injuries. Double nerve transfer to the axillary nerve and suprascapular nerve is widely used and considered the best option. The most common donor nerve for the suprascapular nerve is the spinal accessory nerve. However, donor nerves for axillary nerve reconstructions vary and it is still unclear which donor nerve has the best outcome. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review on reconstructions of suprascapular and axillary nerves and to perform a meta-analysis investigating the outcomes of different donor nerves on axillary nerve reconstructions. We conducted a systematic search of English literature from March 2001 to December 2020 following PRISMA guidelines. Two outcomes were assessed, abduction strength using the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale and range of motion (ROM). Twenty-two studies describing the use of donor nerves met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Donor nerves investigated included the radial nerve, intercostal nerves, medial pectoral nerve, ulnar nerve fascicle, median nerve fascicle and the lower subscapular nerve. Fifteen studies that investigated the radial and intercostal nerves met the inclusion criteria for a meta-analysis. We found no statistically significant difference between either of these nerves in the abduction strength according to MRC score (radial nerve 3.66 ± 1.02 vs intercostal nerves 3.48 ± 0.64, p = 0.086). However, the difference in ROM was statistically significant (radial nerve 106.33 ± 39.01 vs. intercostal nerve 80.42 ± 24.9, p < 0.001). Our findings support using a branch of the radial nerve for the triceps muscle as a donor for axillary nerve reconstruction when possible. Intercostal nerves can be used in cases of total brachial plexus injury or involvement of the C7 root or posterior fascicle. Other promising methods need to be studied more thoroughly in order to validate and compare their results with the more commonly used methods.