Motor Nerve Transfer Research Articles

Anterior Interosseous-to-Ulnar Motor Nerve Transfers: A Single Center's Experience in Restoring Intrinsic Hand Function.

Background: Transfer of the anterior interosseous nerve (AIN) into the ulnar motor branch improves intrinsic hand function in patients with high ulnar nerve injuries. We report our outcomes of this nerve transfer and hypothesize that any improvement in intrinsic hand function is beneficial to patients. Methods: A retrospective review of all AIN-to-ulnar motor nerve transfers, including both supercharged end-to-side (SETS) and end-to-end (ETE) transfers, from 2011 to 2018 performed by 2 surgeons was conducted. All adult patients who underwent this nerve transfer for any reason with greater than 6 months' follow-up and completed charts were included. Primary outcome measures were motor function using the British Medical Research Council (BMRC) grading system and subjective satisfaction with surgery using a visual analog scale. Secondary outcome measures included complications and donor site deficits. Results: Of the 57 patients who underwent nerve transfer, 32 patients met the inclusion criteria. The average follow-up and average time to surgery were 12 and 15.6 months, respectively. The overall average BMRC score was 2.9/5, with a trend toward better recovery in patients who received earlier surgery (<12 months = BMRC 3.7, ≥12 months = BMRC 2.2; P < .01). Patients with an SETS transfer had better results that those with an ETE transfer (SETS = 3.2, ETE = 2.6). There were no donor deficits after operation. One patient developed complex regional pain syndrome. Conclusions: Patients with earlier surgery and an in-continuity nerve (receiving an SETS transfer) showed improved recovery with a higher BMRC grade compared with those who underwent later surgery. Any improvements in intrinsic hand function would be beneficial to patients.

Supercharge End-to-Side Anterior Interosseous-to-Ulnar Motor Nerve Transfer Restores Intrinsic Function in Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.

The supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous nerve-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer offers a viable option to enhance recovery of intrinsic function following ulnar nerve injury. However, in the setting of chronic ulnar nerve compression where the timing of onset of axonal loss is unclear, there is a deficit in the literature on outcomes after supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous nerve-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer. A retrospective study of patients who underwent supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous nerve-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer for severe cubital tunnel syndrome over a 5-year period was performed. The primary outcomes were improvement in first dorsal interosseous Medical Research Council grade at final follow-up and time to reinnervation. Change in key pinch strength; grip strength; and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire scores were also evaluated using paired t tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Forty-two patients with severe cubital tunnel syndrome were included in this study. Other than age, there were no significant clinical or diagnostic variables that were predictive of failure. There was no threshold of compound muscle action potential amplitude below which supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous nerve-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer was unsuccessful. This study provides the first cohort of outcomes following supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous nerve-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer in chronic ulnar compression neuropathy alone and underscores the importance of appropriate patient selection. Prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials with standardized outcome measures are required. Therapeutic, IV.

Evaluation of Intrinsic Hand Musculature Reinnervation following Supercharge End-to-Side Anterior Interosseous-to-Ulnar Motor Nerve Transfer.

Supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer is commonly performed in the authors' institution to augment intrinsic hand function. Following observations of recovery patterns, the authors hypothesized that despite its more distal innervation, the first dorsal interosseous muscle recovers to a greater extent than the abductor digiti minimi muscle. The objective of this work was to evaluate the clinical and electrodiagnostic pattern of reinnervation of intrinsic hand musculature following supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer. A retrospective cohort of prospectively collected data included all patients who underwent a supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer. Two independent reviewers performed data collection. Reinnervation was assessed with two primary outcome measures: (1) clinically, with serial Medical Research Council strength assessments; and (2) electrodiagnostically, with serial motor amplitude measurements. Statistical analysis was performed using nonparametric statistics. Seventeen patients (65 percent male; mean age, 56.9 ± 13.3 years) were included with a mean follow-up of 16.7 ± 8.5 months. Preoperatively, all patients demonstrated clinically significant weakness and electrodiagnostic evidence of denervation. Postoperatively, strength and motor amplitude increased significantly for both the first dorsal interosseous muscle (p = 0.002 and p = 0.016) and the abductor digiti minimi muscle (p = 0.044 and p = 0.015). Despite comparable preoperative strength (p = 0.098), postoperatively, the first dorsal interosseous muscle achieved significantly greater strength when compared to the abductor digiti minimi muscle (p = 0.023). Following supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous-to-ulnar motor nerve transfer, recovery of intrinsic muscle function differs between the abductor digiti minimi and the first dorsal interosseous muscles, with better recovery observed in the more distally innervated first dorsal interosseous muscle. Further work to elucidate the underlying physiologic and anatomical basis for this discrepancy is indicated. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic, IV.

The Branching Pattern and Internal Topography of the Musculocutaneous Nerve

BackgroundPrevious research on the musculocutaneous nerve (MCN) has focused on its motor and sensory branching pattern. Defining the branching pattern is important for selective neurectomy in the treatment of elbow flexor spasticity (EFS). Very limited data, however, exists regarding its internal topography, which is important for surgical procedures. Several neurotization techniques of the MCN, such as intercostal nerve transfer, rely on the location of motor and sensory fascicles of the MCN from the lateral cord. The purpose of this study is to confirm the MCN branching pattern and define its internal topography.ResultsThe study was performed on 15 arms (9 left and 6 right) in 12 Caucasians cadavers. Branches of the MCN nerve to the coracobrachialis, biceps brachii and brachialis muscles were assessed and presented as a percentage of the distance from the coracoid process to the medial epicondyle. The internal topography of each fasciculus was identified at proximal, middle and distal levels following blunt intraneural dissection from the respective branch termination up to the lateral cord. It was found that the coracobrachialis muscle was innervated by 1–3 primary branches arising from MCN at an average of 17.7% of the arm length. The biceps brachii was innervated by 1–2 primary branches arising at an average 45% of the arm length. The brachialis was innervated by a single branch arising at an average 60% of the arm length. Regarding its internal topography, the lateral cutaneous nerve to the forearm occupied the medial and anteromedial one fourth at proximal and middle levels, but the lateral and posterolateral one fourth at the distal level. The branches to the coracobrachialis and biceps brachii occupy the anterior and anterolateral one fourth at the proximal level, and the branches to the brachialis occupy the lateral and posterolateral one fourth at proximal and middle levels, and the medial and posteromedial one fourth at the distal level.ConclusionsCompared to the respective data found in the literature, our present results indicate that the branching points of the nerves to coracobrachialis, biceps brachii, and brachialis are relatively constant at approximately 20%, 40%, and 60% respectively, of the distance between the coracoid process and the medial epicondyle. Additionally, regarding the internal topography, our results indicate that while at the distal level the lateral cutaneous nerve to the forearm was located lateral and the brachialis branch was located medial, at the proximal level of MCN the nerves to the coracobrachialis, biceps brachii and brachialis occupy the lateral three fourths and lateral cutaneous nerve of the forearm occupies the medial one fourth. Based on the data obtained, it appears that the lateral half of the proximal and middle levels and the medial half of distal level of MCN would be the preferred site for any motor nerve transfer. These findings are important for the development of more efficient microsurgical procedures to treat EFS and for neurotization of the MCN.Support or Funding InformationCenter for Anatomical Science and Education, Department of Surgery, Saint Louis University School of Medicine

Refining Indications for the Supercharge End-to-Side Anterior Interosseous to Ulnar Motor Nerve Transfer in Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.

The supercharge end-to-side anterior interosseous to ulnar motor nerve transfer has gained popularity over the past decade as a method of augmenting intrinsic muscle reinnervation in patients with acute neurotmetic ulnar nerve injuries. Controversy remains regarding its efficacy and appropriate clinical indications in cubital tunnel syndrome, where the timing of onset of axonal loss is less clear. The authors present guidelines for patient selection, surgical technique, and postoperative rehabilitation based on their clinical experience with the technique in this patient population. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic, V.

Comparison Between Supercharged Ulnar Nerve Repair by Anterior Interosseous Nerve Transfer and Isolated Ulnar Nerve Repair in Proximal Ulnar Nerve Injuries

To compare combined ulnar nerve repair with supercharged end-to-side anterior interosseous nerve to ulnar motor nerve transfer (UR+SETS) with conventional isolated ulnar repair techniques in proximal ulnar nerve transection, with respect to intrinsic muscle power recovery and claw hand deformity correction. We conducted a comparative matched-paired series prospectively on 21 patients with proximal ulnar nerve transection injury. Eleven patients were managed by UR+SETS and 10 by isolated ulnar repair. The outcome was reported at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months using the score of Birch and Raji and Brand's criteria. A total of 21 patients with acute proximal ulnar nerve transection injury had completed 18 months' follow-up. We observed better results in the UR+SETS group regarding the return of intrinsic function and reduction of deformity with earlier improvement in the score of Birch and Raji and Brand's criteria. In the short term, UR+SETS transfer appears to result in better intrinsic muscle reinnervation and clawing deformity correction after proximal ulnar nerve transection injury. Therapeutic II.

Upper Extremity Axon Counts and Clinical Implications for Motor Nerve Transfer.

Nerve transfers are planned based on the following parameters: location, number of branches, and axon count matching of the donor and recipient nerves. The authors have previously defined the former two in upper limb muscles. In the literature, axon counts are obtained from various sources, using different methods of histomorphometry. This study describes the axon counts of the same primary motor nerve branches from the authors' previous study using a uniform method of manual histomorphometry and completes the authors' blueprint of upper limb neuromuscular anatomy for reconstructive surgery. The distal ends of the primary nerve branches of 23 upper limb muscles were harvested from 10 fresh frozen cadaveric upper limbs. Manual quantitative histomorphometry was performed by two independent investigators, and the average was reported. The primary nerve branches of the arm muscles had higher average axon counts (range, 882 to 1835) compared with those of the forearm muscles (range, 267 to 883). In the forearm, wrist flexor (range, 659 to 746) and extensor (range, 543 to 745) nerve branches had axons counts that were similar to those of potential donors (e.g., supinator, n = 602; pronator teres, n = 625; flexor digitorum superficialis, n = 883; and flexor digitorum profundus, n = 832). Apart from describing the axon counts of the upper limb, the authors have found that the forearm axon counts are very comparable. This insight, when combined with information on the location and number of primary nerve branches, will empower surgeons to tailor bespoke nerve transfers for every clinical situation.

Nerve transfers in the upper extremity following cervical spinal cord injury. Part 2: Preliminary results of a prospective clinical trial.

Patients with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI)/tetraplegia consistently rank restoring arm and hand function as their top functional priority to improve quality of life. Motor nerve transfers traditionally used to treat peripheral nerve injuries are increasingly used to treat patients with cervical SCIs. In this article, the authors present early results of a prospective clinical trial using nerve transfers to restore upper-extremity function in tetraplegia. Participants with American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) grade A-C cervical SCI/tetraplegia were prospectively enrolled at a single institution, and nerve transfer(s) was performed to improve upper-extremity function. Functional recovery and strength outcomes were independently assessed and prospectively tracked. Seventeen participants (94.1% males) with a median age of 28.4 years (range 18.2-76.3 years) who underwent nerve transfers at a median of 18.2 months (range 5.2-130.8 months) after injury were included in the analysis. Preoperative SCI levels ranged from C2 to C7, most commonly at C4 (35.3%). The median postoperative follow-up duration was 24.9 months (range 12.0-29.1 months). Patients who underwent transfers to median nerve motor branches and completed 18- and 24-month follow-ups achieved finger flexion strength Medical Research Council (MRC) grade ≥ 3/5 in 4 of 15 (26.7%) and 3 of 12 (25.0%) treated upper limbs, respectively. Similarly, patients achieved MRC grade ≥ 3/5 wrist flexion strength in 5 of 15 (33.3%) and 3 of 12 (25.0%) upper limbs. Among patients who underwent transfers to the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) for wrist/finger extension, MRC grade ≥ 3/5 strength was demonstrated in 5 of 9 (55.6%) and 4 of 7 (57.1%) upper limbs 18 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. Similarly, grade ≥ 3/5 strength was demonstrated in 5 of 9 (55.6%) and 4 of 7 (57.1%) cases for thumb extension. No meaningful donor site deficits were observed. Patients reported significant postoperative improvements from baseline on upper-extremity-specific self-reported outcome measures. Motor nerve transfers are a promising treatment option to restore upper-extremity function after SCI. In the authors' experience, nerve transfers for the reinnervation of hand and finger flexors showed variable functional recovery; however, transfers for the reinnervation of arm, hand, and finger extensors showed a more consistent and meaningful return of strength and function.

Nerve transfers in the upper extremity following cervical spinal cord injury. Part 1: Systematic review of the literature.

Patients with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI)/tetraplegia consistently rank restoring arm and hand function as their top functional priority to improve quality of life. Motor nerve transfers traditionally used to treat peripheral nerve injuries are increasingly being used to treat patients with cervical SCIs. In this study, the authors performed a systematic review summarizing the published literature on nerve transfers to restore upper-extremity function in tetraplegia. A systematic literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE 1946-, Embase 1947-, Scopus 1960-, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant literature published through January 2019. The authors included studies that provided original patient-level data and extracted information on clinical characteristics, operative details, and strength outcomes after nerve transfer procedures. Critical review and synthesis of the articles were performed. Twenty-two unique studies, reporting on 158 nerve transfers in 118 upper limbs of 92 patients (87 males, 94.6%) were included in the systematic review. The mean duration from SCI to nerve transfer surgery was 18.7 months (range 4 months-13 years) and mean postoperative follow-up duration was 19.5 months (range 1 month-4 years). The main goals of reinnervation were the restoration of thumb and finger flexion, elbow extension, and wrist and finger extension. Significant heterogeneity in transfer strategy and postoperative outcomes were noted among the reports. All but one case report demonstrated recovery of at least Medical Research Council grade 3/5 strength in recipient muscle groups; however, there was greater variation in the results of larger case series. The best, most consistent outcomes were demonstrated for restoration of wrist/finger extension and elbow extension. Motor nerve transfers are a promising treatment option to restore upper-extremity function after SCI. Flexor reinnervation strategies show variable treatment effect sizes; however, extensor reinnervation may provide more consistent, meaningful recovery. Despite numerous published case reports describing good patient outcomes with nerve transfers, there remains a paucity in the literature regarding optimal timing and long-term clinical outcomes with these procedures.

Nerve Transfers—A Paradigm Shift in the Reconstructive Ladder

In this review, we present the current role of nerve transfers in the management of nerve injuries. The outcome of a literature review comparing the results of nerve graft versus nerve transfer and the experience of select surgical societies' members regarding experience and adoption of nerve transfer are reported. Nerve transfer publications have increased more than nerve graft or repair articles. The surgeon survey revealed an increase in nerve transfers and that more motor nerve transfers have been adopted into practice compared to sensory nerve transfers. The meta-analyses and systematic reviews of motor nerve transfers for shoulder and elbow function presented variable outcomes related to donor nerve selection. Comprehensive patient assessment is essential to evaluate the immediate functional needs and consider future reconstruction that may be necessary. Optimal outcome following nerve injury may involve a combination of different surgical options and more than one type of reconstruction. Nerve transfer is a logical extension of the paradigm shift from nerve repair and nerve graft and offers a new rung on the reconstruction ladder.

Supercharge End-to-Side Nerve Transfer: Systematic Review.

Background: To decrease the time to reinnervation of the intrinsic motor end plates after high ulnar nerve injuries, a supercharged end-to-side (SETS) anterior interosseous to ulnar motor nerve transfer has been proposed. The purpose of this study was to compile and review the indications, outcomes, and complications of SETS anterior interosseous to ulnar motor nerve transfer. Methods: A literature search was performed, identifying 73 papers; 4 of which met inclusion and exclusion criteria, including 78 patients. Papers included were those that contained the results of SETS between the years 2000 and 2018. Data were pooled and analyzed focusing on the primary outcomes: intrinsic muscle recovery and complications. Results: Four studies with 78 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most patients (33.3%) underwent SETS for an ulnar nerve lesion in continuity, the average age was 46.5 years, and the average follow-up was 10 months. The average duration of symptoms before surgery was 99 weeks, all patients had weakness and numbness, nearly all (96%) had atrophy, and half (53%) had pain. Grip and key pinch strength improved 202% and 179%, respectively, from the preoperative assessment. The vast majority (91.9%) recovered intrinsic function at an average of 3.7 months. Other than 8% of patients who did not recover intrinsic strength, no other complications were reported in any of the 78 patients. Conclusions: The SETS is a successful procedure with low morbidity, which may restore intrinsic function in patients with proximal nerve injuries.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Combined Dual Motor Nerve Transfers versus Alternative Surgical and Nonsurgical Management Strategies to Restore Shoulder Function Following Upper Brachial Plexus Injury

Restoration of shoulder function is an important treatment goal in upper brachial plexus injury (UBPI). Combined dual motor nerve transfer (CDNT) of spinal accessory to suprascapular and radial to axillary nerves demonstrates good functional recovery with minimal risk of perioperative complications. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CDNT vs alternative operative and nonoperative treatments for UBPI. A decision model was constructed to evaluate costs ($, third-party payer) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) of CDNT compared to glenohumeral arthrodesis (GA), conservative management, and nontreatment strategies. Estimates for branch probabilities, costs, and QALYs were derived from published studies. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, $/QALY) were calculated to compare the competing strategies. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses with 100 000 iterations were performed to account for effects of uncertainty in model inputs. Base case model demonstrated CDNT effectiveness, yielding an expected 21.04 lifetime QALYs, compared to 20.89 QALYs with GA, 19.68 QALYs with conservative management, and 19.15 QALYs with no treatment. The ICERs for CDNT, GA, and conservative management vs nontreatment were $5776.73/QALY, $10 483.52/QALY, and $882.47/QALY, respectively. Adjusting for potential income associated with increased likelihood of returning to work after clinical recovery demonstrated CDNT as the dominant strategy, with ICER=-$56 459.54/QALY relative to nontreatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed CDNT cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY in 78.47% and 81.97% of trials with and without income adjustment, respectively. Conservative management dominated in <1% of iterations. CDNT and GA are cost-effective interventions to restore shoulder function in patients with UBPI.

The stages of rehabilitation following motor nerve transfer surgery

Nerve transfer surgery is a reliable technique for restoration of motor function for paralysis resulting from peripheral nerve injury. The donor motor branch or fascicle is selected in proximity to the denervated target, and a tension-free end-to-end nerve coaptation is performed allowing rapid neurotisation and functional restoration. To date, a standardised rehabilitation protocol does not exist. The Birmingham Protocol was developed to enhance communication between surgeons and physiotherapists and to improve patients' understanding of the recovery process. It is a six-phase continuous rehabilitation programme designed to improve the outcomes following motor nerve transfer surgery. The programme was developed in a regional peripheral nerve injury service and has been evaluated over 10 years in >500 motor nerve transfer procedures. The programme is simple to understand and implement, allowing patient engagement and standardisation of treatment by non-specialist physiotherapists in rehabilitation units remote from the regional centre. The phases are described with expected timelines for progression for motor nerve transfers at different sites. Core outcome measures are defined to facilitate multicentre research. It is hoped that this protocol will serve as a framework that can be applied in other centres both in the UK and the international community.

Rewiring the upper limb: Motor nerve transfer surgery in the reconstruction of paralysis

Surgery to rewire a paralysed limb is now possible using motor nerve transfer surgery. The technique has been adapted from brachial plexus surgery and applied to other causes of paralysis with remarkable results, providing function to patients left paralysed from spinal cord injury, inflammatory neuropathy, tumour surgery and degenerative spinal disease. Adapting the techniques to peripheral nerve injury offers improved outcomes compared to anatomical reconstruction of an injured nerve. Nerve transfer surgery involves harvest of an expendable motor branch or redundant motor fascicle from a peripheral nerve and direct, tension-free coaptation to the distal motor branch of a paralysed muscle close to the motor point. Rapid re-innervation of the denervated muscle results in reliable motor recovery. Originally popularised for the reconstruction of nerve root avulsion, the technique has been adapted for use in other peripheral nerve injuries resulting in motor outcomes that are superior to those achieved through grafting of mixed motor-sensory nerve gaps. Nerve transfer surgery may be used to salvage late presenting cases, failed proximal reconstructions or as an adjunct for key motor functions in proximal nerve repairs where the time-distance phenomenon of peripheral nerve regeneration results in poor distal motor recovery, even following acute direct repair. The extension of the technique to other paralysing conditions demonstrates promise.

The evolution of nerve transfer restoration of shoulder function

Loss of shoulder abduction and external rotation reduces the working space for the upper limb and hand. Paralysis may follow C5 nerve root avulsion, upper trunk rupture or isolated injuries to the suprascapular and axillary nerves. Motor nerve transfer surgery involves a direct transfer of an expendable motor branch from a muscle in the vicinity of the paralyzed muscle and direct transfer with microsurgical end-to-end coaptation to the nerve to the denervated muscle close to its motor point. Reinnervation is rapid and robust. The technique was described for the restoration of deltoid function more than a century ago but was not adopted into wide spread use until the past two decades. This article explores the various options of nerve transfer surgery to restore function of shoulder function and reviews the evidence. Refinements in the procedure have resulted with the current algorithm for management, which will be described with its rationale and a review of clinical outcomes.

Delayed motor nerve transfer reconstruction for C5 and C6 resection during tumour surgery

We present a case of a delayed motor nerve reconstruction following resection of the C5 nerve root due to a recurrent aneurysmal bone cyst. Our patient, a 17-year-old male, presented with a major motor radiculopathy of C5 and revision surgery requiring resection of the C5 root. Four peripheral nerve transfers were undertaken to successfully reconstruct the functional loss at more than 14 months from the paralysis onset. Nerve transfer is usually considered only when the target muscles can be reinnervated within 9 months after lower motor neurone loss. The strategies for reducing reinnervation time and the differences in nerve transfer surgery for traumatic lesions will be discussed. Tumour surgeons should consider early involvement of a peripheral nerve surgeon when nerve must be sacrificed during tumour clearance. This allows the option of early targeted reconstruction and provides guidance to the patient on anticipated outcomes after surgery.

Double Motor Nerve Transfer for All Finger Flexion in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: An Anatomical Study and a Clinical Report.

To explore the feasibility of restoring all finger flexion after a cervical spinal cord injury. Double nerve transfer was conducted in 22 cadaver upper extremities. Donor nerves were the brachialis branch of the musculocutaneous nerve and the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) branches of the radial nerve. Recipient nerves were the anterior interosseous nerve (AIN) and the flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) branch of ulnar nerve (ulnar-FDP). Nerve transfers were evaluated on 3 parameters: surgical feasibility, donor-to-recipient axon count ratio, and distance from the coaptation site to the muscle entry of recipient nerve. A complete C6 spinal cord injury reconstruction was accomplished in a patient using a double nerve transfer of ECRB to ulnar-FDP and brachialis to AIN. In the cadaver study, nerve transfers from ECRB to AIN, brachialis to AIN, and ECRB to ulnar-FDP were all feasible. The transfer from the brachialis to ulnar-FDP was not possible. Mean myelinated axon counts of AIN, brachialis, ulnar-FDP, and ECRB were 2,903 ± 1049, 1,497 ± 606, 753 ± 364, and 567 ± 175, respectively. The donor-to-recipient axon count ratios of ECRB to AIN, brachialis to AIN, and ECRB to ulnar-FDP were 0.24 ± 0.15, 0.55 ± 0.38, and 0.98 ± 0.60, respectively. The distance from coaptation of the ECRB to the ulnar-FDP muscle entry was shorter than for the other nerve transfers (54 ± 14.29 mm). At 18 months, there was restoration of flexion in all fingers and functional improvement from double nerve transfer of the brachialis to the AIN and the ECRB to theulnar-FDP. Restoration of all finger flexion may be feasible by the ECRB to ulnar-FDP and brachialis to AIN double nerve transfer. Double nerve transfer can be used in C6-C7 spinal cord injury and patients with lower arm-type brachial plexus injury who have no finger flexion but have good brachialis and ECRB.

Salvage of cervical motor radiculopathy using peripheral nerve transfer reconstruction

Purpose: Motor nerve transfer surgery involves re-innervation of important distal muscles using either an expendable motor branch or a fascicle from an adjacent functioning nerve. This technique is established as part of the reconstructive algorithm for traumatic brachial plexus injuries. The reproducible outcomes of motor nerve transfer surgery have resulted in exploration of the application of this technique to other paralysing conditions. The objective of this study is to report feasibility and increase awareness about nerve transfer as a method of improving upper limb function in patients with cervical motor radiculopathy of different aetiology.Results: In this case series we report 3 cases with different modes of injury to the spinal nerve roots with significant and residual motor radiculopathy that have been successfully treated with nerve transfer surgery with good functional outcomes. The cases involved iatrogenic nerve root injury, tumour related root compression and degenerative root compression.Conclusion: Nerve transfer surgery may offer reliable reconstruction for paralysis when there has been no recovery following a period of conservative management. However the optimum timing of nerve transfer intervention is not yet identified for patients with motor radiculopathy.

Novel Model of Somatosensory Nerve Transfer in the Rat.

Nerve transfer (neurotization) is a reconstructive procedure in which the distal denervated nerve is joined with a proximal healthy nerve of a less significant function. Neurotization models described to date are limited to avulsed roots or pure motor nerve transfers, neglecting the clinically significant mixed nerve transfer. Our aim was to determine whether femoral-to-sciatic nerve transfer could be a feasible model of mixed nerve transfer. Three Sprague Dawley rats were subjected to unilateral femoral-to-sciatic nerve transfer. After 50days, functional recovery was evaluated with a prick test. At the same time, axonal tracers were injected into each sciatic nerve distally to the lesion site, to determine nerve fibers' regeneration. In the prick test, the rats retracted their hind limbs after stimulation, although the reaction was moderately weaker on the operated side. Seven days after injection of axonal tracers, dyes were visualized by confocal microscopy in the spinal cord. Innervation of the recipient nerve originated from higher segments of the spinal cord than that on the untreated side. The results imply that the femoral nerve axons, ingrown into the damaged sciatic nerve, reinnervate distal targets with a functional outcome.

Nerve Transfer Versus Nerve Graft for Reconstruction of High Ulnar Nerve Injuries

To assess the efficacy of nerve transfer versus nerve grafting in restoring motor and sensory hand function in patients with complete, isolated high ulnar nerve injuries. A retrospective chart review was performed, at a minimum 2 years of follow-up, of 52 patients suffering complete, isolated high ulnar nerve injury between January 2006 and June 2013 in one specialized hand surgery unit. Twenty-four patients underwent motor and sensory nerve transfers (NT group). Twenty-eight patients underwent sural nerve grafting (NG group). Motor recovery, return of sensibility and complications were examined as outcome measures. The Medical Research Council scale was applied to evaluate sensory and motor recovery. Grip and pinch strengths of the hand were measured. Twenty of 24 patients (83.33%) in the NT group regained M3 grade or greater for the adductor pollicis, the abductor digiti minimi, and the medial 2 lumbricals and interossei, compared with only 16 of 28 patients (57.14%) in the NG group. Means for percentage recovery of grip strengths compared with the other healthy hand were significantly higher for the NT group than the NG group. Sensory recovery of S3 or greater was achieved in more than half of each group with no significant difference between groups. Nerve transfer is favored over nerve grafting in managing high ulnar nerve injuries because of better improvement of motor power and better restoration of grip functions of the hand. Therapeutic IV.