Access to surgical upper extremity care for people with tetraplegia: an international perspective

Comparing surgeries to restore upper extremity function in tetraplegia: Impact on function during the perioperative period

CONTEXT/OBJECTIVE

To assess short-term changes in health outcomes in people with cervical-level spinal cord injury (SCI) who underwent upper extremity (UE) reconstruction via either novel nerve transfer (NT) or traditional tendon transfer (TT) surgery with individuals who did not undergo UE surgical reconstruction.

DESIGN

Prospective, comparative cohort pilot study.

PARTICIPANTS

34 participants with cervical SCI met the following inclusion criteria: age 18 or older, greater than 6 months post-injury, and mid-cervical level SCI American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) A, B or C.

SETTING

Two tertiary academic hospitals and their affiliated veterans' hospitals.

METHODS

Health outcomes were assessed using two previously validated measures, the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) and Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Demographic, surgical, and survey data were collected at the initial evaluation and one month postoperatively/post-baseline.

RESULTS

34 participants with cervical SCI were recruited across three cohorts: no surgery (n = 16), NT (n = 10), and TT (n = 8). The TT group had a decline in SCIM and SF-36 scores whereas the NT and no surgery groups experienced little change in independence or health status in the immediate perioperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons and rehabilitation providers must recognize differences in the perioperative needs of people with cervical SCI who chose to have restorative UE surgery. Future work should focus on further investigation of health outcomes, change in function, and improving preoperative counseling and cross-disciplinary management.

The Surgical Restoration of Arm and Hand Function in Tetraplegic Patients

BACKGROUND

There are approximately 140 000 people in Germany with spinal cord injury, with approximately 2400 new patients each year. Cervical spinal cord injuries cause, to varying degrees, weakness and impairment of everyday activities of the limbs (tetraparesis, tetraplegia).

METHODS

This review is based on relevant publications retrieved by a selective search of the literature.

RESULTS

From among 330 initially screened publications, 40 were included and analyzed. Muscle and tendon transfers, tenodeses, and joint stabilizations yielded reliable functional improvement of the upper limb. Tendon transfers improved the strength of elbow extension from M0 to an average of M3.3 (BMRC) and grip strength to approximately 2 kg. In the long term, 17-20% of strength is lost after active tendon transfers and slightly more after passive ones. Nerve transfers improved strength to M3 or M4 in over 80% of cases, with the best results overall in patients under 25 years of age who underwent early surgery (within 6 months of the accident). Combined procedures in a single operation have been found to be advantageous compared to the traditional multistep approach. Nerve transfers from intact fascicles at segmental levels above that of the spinal cord lesion have been found to be a valuable addition to the established varieties of muscle and tendon transfer. The reported long-term patient satisfaction is generally high.

CONCLUSION

Modern techniques of hand surgery can help suitably selected tetraparetic and tetraplegic patients regain the use of their upper limbs. Competent interdisciplinary counseling about these surgical options should be offered as early as possible to all affected persons as an integral part of their treatment plan.

Assessing an Online Patient Decision Aid about Upper Extremity Reconstructive Surgery for Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: Pilot Testing Knowledge, Decisional Conflict, and Acceptability

Background. While nerve and tendon transfer surgery can restore upper extremity function and independence after midcervical spinal cord injury, few individuals (∼14%) undergo surgery. There is limited information regarding these complex and time-sensitive treatment options. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) convey complex health information and help individuals make informed, preference-consistent choices. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a newly created PtDA for people with spinal cord injury who are considering options to optimize upper extremity function. Methods. The PtDA was developed by our multidisciplinary group based on clinical evidence and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. A prospective pilot study enrolled adults with midcervical spinal cord injury to evaluate the PtDA. Participants completed surveys about knowledge and decisional conflict before and after viewing the PtDA. Acceptability measures and suggestions for further improvement were also solicited. Results. Forty-two individuals were enrolled and completed study procedures. Participants had a 20% increase in knowledge after using the PtDA (P < 0.001). The number of participants experiencing decisional conflict decreased after viewing the PtDA (33 v. 18, P = 0.001). Acceptability was high. To improve the PtDA, participants suggested adding details about specific surgeries and outcomes. Limitations. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we used an entirely virtual study methodology and recruited participants from national networks and organizations. Most participants were older than the general population with a new spinal cord injury and may have different injury causes than typical surgical candidates. Conclusions. A de novo PtDA improved knowledge of treatment options and reduced decisional conflict about reconstructive surgery among people with cervical spinal cord injury. Future work should explore PtDA use for improving knowledge and decisional conflict in the nonresearch, clinical setting.

Highlights

People with cervical spinal cord injury prioritize gaining upper extremity function after injury, but few individuals receive information about treatment options.A newly created patient decision aid (PtDA) provides information about recovery after spinal cord injury and the role of traditional tendon and newer nerve transfer surgery to improve upper extremity upper extremity function.The PtDA improved knowledge and decreased decisional conflict in this pilot study.Future work should focus on studying dissemination and implementation of the ptDA into clinical practice.

Spinal Cord Injury: Epidemiology, Spontaneous Recovery, and Hand Therapy for the Reconstructive Hand Surgeon

People with spinal cord injury (SCI) prioritize hand function above all else as a reconstructive goal, yet remain a markedly undertreated population by hand surgeons. This review article provides an overview of the epidemiology of SCI and the unmet clinical need of these patients. Further, this article outlines the natural history of SCI, including the expected spontaneous recovery over time and the expectations of hand function when treated with hand therapy alone. This review aims to equip reconstructive hand surgeons with a sound understanding of the basic principles of SCI and recovery and provide a rationale for when to intervene with surgery. In the last decade, this field has changed dramatically with the advent of reliable nerve transfers, making referral and surgical intervention time-sensitive. Therefore this review aims to highlight the expectations from hand therapy alone in this group, the urgent need for early referral to allow nerve transfer options to be viable, and the strategies for overcoming the barriers to these referrals. This offers the opportunity for surgeons to expand their tetraplegia practices while maximizing the considerable contributions to the hand function and quality of life of these patients.

Quantifying Donor Deficits Following Nerve Transfer Surgery in Tetraplegia

PURPOSE

Nerve transfer (NT) surgery can improve function in people with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). However, the impact of donor nerve deficits remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to quantify donor deficits experienced by individuals with cervical SCI following NT.

METHODS

This prospective single-arm, comparative study included people with SCI undergoing upper extremity NTs. Myometry was used to assess muscle strength at baseline and follow-up. The Spinal Cord Independence Measure was used to measure the ability to perform activities of daily living.

RESULTS

Ten individuals underwent 20 NTs to restore elbow extension (donor, posterior deltoid; n = 2), hand opening (donor, supinator; n = 7), and hand closing (donor, brachialis; n = 11). Shoulder abduction strength decreased (-5.6% at early and -4.5% late follow-up) in the elbow extension NT. Wrist extension strength decreased at early (-46.9% ± 30.3) and increased by late (76.4% ± 154.0) follow-up in the hand opening NT. No statistically significant change in elbow flexion strength was noted in the hand closing NT. Spinal Cord Independence Measure scores did not change significantly between baseline and early postoperative follow-up; they improved at late follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of expendable donor nerves with redundant function to perform NT surgery has relatively little impact on strength or capacity to perform activities of daily living, even in the unique and highly vulnerable SCI population. Early, temporary loss in wrist extension strength can be seen after the supinator to posterior interosseous nerve transfer. This study offers quantitative data about possible diminution of donor function after NT, enabling hand surgeons to better counsel individuals contemplating upper extremity reconstruction.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic I.

An Examination of Utilization Rates Over Time of Nerve and Tendon Transfers in Canada to Improve Upper Limb Function in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury

Introduction: Upper limb function loss in cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) contributes to substantial disability, and negatively impacts quality of life. Nerve transfer and tendon transfer surgery can provide improved upper limb function. This study assessed the utilization of nerve and tendon transfer surgery for individuals with tetraplegia in Canada. Methods: Data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information's Discharge Abstracts Database and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System were used to identify the nerve and tendon transfer procedures performed in individuals with tetraplegia (2004-2020). Cases were identified using cervical SCI ICD-10-CA codes and Canadian Classification of Intervention codes for upper extremity nerve and tendon transfers. Data on sex, age at time of procedure, province, and hospital stay duration were recorded. Results: From 2004 to 2020, there were ≤80 nerve transfer procedures (81% male, mean age 38.3 years) and 61 tendon transfer procedures (78% male, mean age 45.0 years) performed (highest in Ontario and British Columbia). Using an estimate of 50% eligibility, an average of 1.3% of individuals underwent nerve transfer and 1.0% underwent tendon transfer. Nerve transfers increased over time (2004-2009, n = <5; 2010-2015, n = 27; 2016-2019, n = 49) and tendon transfers remained relatively constant. Both transfer types were performed as day-surgery or single night stay. Conclusions: Nerve and tendon transfer surgery to improve upper limb function in Canadians with tetraplegia remains low. This study highlights a substantial gap in care for this vulnerable population. Identification of barriers that prevent access to care is required to promote best practice for upper extremity care.

Surgery to Restore Upper Extremity Function in Tetraplegia-Preferences for Early and Frequent Access to Information

INTRODUCTION

People with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) identify improving upper extremity (UE) function as a top priority. In addition to comprehensive rehabilitation, UE surgeries, including nerve and tendon transfers, enhance function. However, barriers exist to disseminating information about surgical options to enhance UE function.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the experiences and preferences of people with cervical SCI and their caregivers in accessing information about surgery to enhance UE function.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study. Participants were followed for 24 months and completed up to three interviews.

SETTING

Tertiary care at academic and affiliated Veterans Administration Health Care Centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with cervical SCI (n=35) ages 18 to 80 years with mid-cervical SCI American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale A, B, or C (at least six months post-injury) and their caregivers (n=23) were eligible to participate. Participants were enrolled in three groups: nerve transfer, tendon transfer, or no UE reconstructive surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Semi-structured interviews about surgical knowledge and experiences.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed and three themes were identified. First, providing information about UE surgical options early post-injury was recommended. The acute or inpatient rehabilitation phases of recovery were the preferred times to receive surgical information. Second, challenges with information dissemination were identified. Participants learned about UE surgery through independent research, medical provider interactions, or peers. Third, peers were identified as valuable resources for SCI needs and surgical information.

CONCLUSIONS

Following cervical SCI, information about UE reconstructive surgeries should be a standard component of education during rehabilitation. An increased understanding of the reconstructive options available to improve UE function is necessary to educate stakeholders. Future research is needed to support the development of strategies to effectively present surgical information to individuals with SCI and healthcare providers. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Patterns of Upper Extremity Reconstruction for Patients With Tetraplegia Across the United States: A Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

The rates of upper extremity reconstruction for patients with tetraplegia remain low. We performed a retrospective study to assess recent reconstruction rates and delineate factors associated with the occurrence of reconstruction.

METHODS

We examined the National Inpatient Sample database (2012-2017) for the rate of reconstruction for patients with tetraplegia. The details of provider distribution characteristics and neighborhood attributes were obtained from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile and based on the area deprivation index, respectively. We calculated the mean reconstruction rate per year and generated multivariable logistic regression models to examine the influence of patient factors, hospital characteristics, and provider distribution on the odds of undergoing functional reconstruction for tetraplegia patients.

RESULTS

Among 404,660 encounters with patients with tetraplegia, only 1,430 (0.4%) patients underwent upper extremity reconstruction from 2012 to 2017, with a mean rate of 238 procedures per year. We identified 5,450 hand surgeons, 12,751 physiatrists, and 444 spinal cord injury specialists, with variation in their national distribution. A greater number of surgeons near SCIS was associated with increased probability of reconstruction (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.12). The odds of surgery were greater for patients receiving care at urban teaching (OR 5.00, 95% CI 3.35-7.47) or urban nonteaching (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.11-2.63) hospitals, whereas those at private nonprofit (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.78) or investor-owned (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.82) hospitals had lower odds. Although most patients had insurance coverage, patients with a higher income or those who received subsidized care had greater odds of undergoing reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstruction rates remain low and are correlated with the environment of care, financial factors, and provider availability. Policies that focus on reducing these factors in addition to increasing interspecialty collaboration could improve access to surgery for patients with tetraplegia.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic I.

Identifying barriers to upper extremity reconstruction in tetraplegia: a systematic scoping review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic scoping review OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to understand the barriers to accessing upper extremity (UE) reconstructive surgery among those living with tetraplegia, and to identify gaps in knowledge.

METHODS

Using standardized scoping review methods, a literature search was conducted using four databases and 1069 articles were procured. Two independent reviewers systematically screened the articles in two phases. Retrieved articles underwent thematic analysis using a constructivist grounded theory methodology.

RESULTS

The reviewed articles (n = 25) were published between 2002 and 2019, and study designs included: cross-sectional (64%), retrospective (16%), and review articles (8%). Common barriers to UE reconstruction were categorized into factors related to patients, providers, and systems. These general domains included lack of awareness of UE reconstruction and its benefits among people with tetraplegia and providers, poor interdisciplinary working relationships, and a lack of specialized centers that provide these reconstructive surgeries. Specific patient-related barriers related to intrinsic (coping skills, trust, fear) and extrinsic (support network, finances, postoperative course) factors that influenced decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many barriers that prevent individuals with tetraplegia from accessing surgery at different levels of the healthcare system. Establishing specialized centers with strong interdisciplinary working relationships and raising awareness about the advantages and disadvantages of UE reconstruction through peer networks may help to improve accessibility. Using a value-based, patient-centered approach by exploring how individuals with SCI weigh each decision factor when considering surgery may help providers develop treatment options that better align with their goals.

Nerve transfer surgery in spinal cord injury: online information sharing

Background

Nerve transfer to improve upper extremity function in persons with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) is a new reconstructive option, and has led to more people seeking and sharing surgical information and experiences. This study evaluated the role of social media in information-sharing on nerve transfer surgery within the SCI community.

Methods

Data were collected from Facebook, which is the favored information-sharing platform among individuals seeking medical information. Searched terms included ‘spinal cord injury’ and ‘SCI’ and excluded groups with: less than two members (n = 7); closed groups (n = 2); not pertaining to SCI (n = 13); restricted access (n = 36); and non-English (n = 2). Within public and private accessed groups, searches were conducted for ‘nerve’, ‘transfer’, ‘nerve transfer’, and ‘nerve surgery’. Each post about nerve transfer, responses to posts, and comments about nerve transfer in response to unrelated posts were tabulated. Thematic content analyses were performed and data were categorized as seeking information, sharing information, sharing support, and sharing appreciation.

Results

The search yielded 99 groups; 35 met the inclusion criteria (average size = 2007, largest = 12,277). Nerve transfer was discussed in nine groups, with 577 total mentions. In the seeking information axis, posts were related to personal experience (54%), objective information (31%), surgeon/center performing the procedure (9%), and second opinion (4%). At least 13% of posts were from individuals learning about nerve transfers for the first time. In the sharing information axis, the posts: shared personal experience (52%); shared objective information (13%); described alternative treatment (3%); tagged someone to share information (11%); linked to outside resources (12%); and recommended a specific surgeon/center (9%).

Conclusion

Social media is an important source of information and support for people with SCI. There is a paucity of information on nerve transfers. These study findings will inform implementation of future education strategies.

Nerve transfer surgery in cervical spinal cord injury: a qualitative study exploring surgical and caregiver participant experiences

PURPOSE

To investigate perceptions of surgical participants and their caregivers regarding novel nerve transfer surgery to restore upper extremity function in cervical level spinal cord injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A qualitative study design was used. A multidisciplinary team developed semi-structured interview guides. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using basic text analysis.

RESULTS

Participants had limited information about procedures to improve function after spinal cord injury. When discussing their choice to undergo nerve (as compared to traditional tendon) transfer surgery, they describe a desire to avoid post-operative immobilization. Barriers included the pre-operative testing, cost and inconvenience of travel for surgery, and understanding complex health information related to the procedure. While expectations matched descriptions of outcomes among participants and were generally positive, caregivers expressed disappointment. The long time interval for gains in function to be realized and relatively incremental gains achieved were frustrating to all.

CONCLUSIONS

People with cervical spinal cord injury and their caregivers need more information about options to restore function and about realistic range of improvements with treatment. Further work to mitigate barriers and develop health information materials around nerve transfer surgery may improve medical decision making around and appropriate use of this newer treatment option.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONNerve transfer surgery is a novel and acceptable means of improving upper extremity function in the setting of cervical spinal cord injury.People with cervical spinal cord injury and their caregivers need information about options to restore hand and arm function and mitigation of barriers around these treatment options.

Rehabilitation After Surgical Reconstruction to Restore Function to the Upper Limb in Tetraplegia: A Changing Landscape

Upper limb reconstructive surgical procedures for individuals with tetraplegia are performed in many centers internationally. Most recipients of surgery return to local communities and nonsurgical centers for postoperative rehabilitation and long-term follow-up. This supplement focuses on the clinical significance of upper extremity reconstruction, addressing issues related to the availability and choice for surgery, preoperative assessments, postoperative training paradigms, and appropriate outcome measures. Comprehensive intervention protocols are described in terms of dose, timing, specific activities, modalities, and related outcomes. Shared knowledge of current rehabilitation practice, as it relates to reconstructive surgery, can expand treatment options communicated to patients, increase the availability of postoperative muscle reeducation programs, and motivate long-term follow-up assessments.

Understanding and Overcoming Barriers to Upper Limb Surgical Reconstruction After Tetraplegia: The Need for Interdisciplinary Collaboration

There are approximately 300,000 persons with spinal cord injury living in the United States, and nearly 60% of these persons have suffered tetraplegia with resultant alterations in body function, activity, and therefore participation. Restoring hand function can improve independence, and various studies have shown that persons with tetraplegia rate restoration of arm and hand function higher than bowel and bladder control, walking, or sexuality. There are conservative options to improve upper limb function in this population (eg, orthoses, neuroprostheses). Surgical interventions are also available, and 70% of surgical patients report satisfaction and improvement in various activities of daily living after surgery to restore arm and hand function. Despite these positive surgical outcomes, <10% of the eligible population of 60% to 70% undergo tendon transfer surgery to restore function. Underutilization of surgical interventions can be explained by population-, provider-, and health care systems-specific barriers. With further education of providers and patients and team building across disciplines these barriers can be overcome, ultimately leading to reduced disability and improved quality of life for persons with tetraplegia.