ArticlePDF Available

Can an injured nerve be used as a donor nerve for distal nerve transfer?-An experimental study in rats

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Background: Distal nerve transfer has proven efficacy. The purpose of this study was to investigate if an injured nerve can be used as a donor nerve for transfer, and to determine the threshold of injury. Materials and methods: Rat's left ulnar-nerves in the axilla with different degrees of injury were selected as the donor nerves for transfer, and the musculocutaneous-nerves the target nerves for being re-innervated. Six rats each served as positive and negative controls: Group A, intact ulnar-nerve transfer; and Group E, the ulnar-nerve was cut but no transfer. Ten rats each were assigned to Group B to Group D with 25%, 50%, and 75% transected ulnar-nerve, respectively and all were transferred to the musculocutaneous-nerve. After a 12-week recovery period, outcomes were evaluated. Results: Biceps muscle weight measurements showed all experimental groups-D 0.28 ± 0.02 g/72%, C 0.28 ± 0.03 g/73%, B 0.29 ± 0.04 g/74%, and A 0.29 ± 0.04 g/80%-were lighter than group H 0.36 ± 0.04 g, which were all statistically significant (P < 0.001). Muscle tetanus contraction force measurements were the lowest in group D35 ± 8.6 g/69%. Groups C and B measured 41 ± 8.5 g/75% and 40 ± 2.2 g/77% and group A 41 ± 9.4 g/95%, respectively. Group H showed muscle contraction force of 52 ± 7.2 g, which was statistically significant when compared to experimental groups (P < 0.05-0.001). EMG measurements of the biceps muscles showed: group D was 3.6 ± 0.7 mV/69%, group C was 3.6 ± 0.6 mV/75%, and group B was 4.2 mV ± 0.7/81%. Group H was5.1 ± 0.7 mV and statistically significant different when compared with experimental groups (P < 0.05-0.001).Axon counts of healthy ulnar-nerve (Group H) were 1849 ± 362. Axon counts of the injured ulnar-nerve were in group B 1447 ± 579/78%, group C 1051 ± 367/57% and group D 567 ± 230/31%. Conclusion: The donor nerve should be healthy in order to provide optimal result. A big nerve (e.g., ulnar nerve) but injured with at least 75% axon spared is still potentially effective for transfer. In contrast, a small nerve (e.g., intercostal nerve) once injured with 75%axon spared would be considered a suboptimal donor nerve.
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Can an injured nerve be used as a donor nerve for distal nerve
transfer?An experimental study in rats
Chieh-Han John Tzou, MD, PhD
1,2
|
Chuieng-Yi Johnny Lu, MD
1
|
Tommy Naj-Jen Chang, MD
1
|
David Chwei-Chin Chuang, MD
1
1
Division of Reconstructive Microsurgery,
Department of Plastic Surgery, Chang Gung
Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan
2
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive
Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Correspondence
David Chwei-Chin Chuang, MD, Professor,
Division of Reconstructive Microsurgery,
Department of Plastic Surgery, Chang Gung
Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung Medical
College, Chang Gung University, 5
Fu-HsingStreet, Kuei-Shan, Taoyuan 333,
Taiwan.
Email: dccchuang@gmail.com
Funding information
National Science Council Taiwan, Grant
Number: NSC 101-2314-B-182A-033-MY3
Background: Distal nerve transfer has proven ecacy. The purpose of this study was to investi-
gate if an injured nerve can be used as a donor nerve for transfer, and to determine the threshold
of injury.
Materials and Methods: Rats left ulnar-nerves in the axilla with dierent degrees of injury were
selected as the donor nerves for transfer, and the musculocutaneous-nerves the target nerves for
being re-innervated. Six rats each served as positive and negative controls: Group A, intact ulnar-
nerve transfer; and Group E, the ulnar-nerve was cut but no transfer. Ten rats each were assigned
to Group B to Group D with 25%, 50%, and 75% transected ulnar-nerve, respectively and all were
transferred to the musculocutaneous-nerve. After a 12-week recovery period, outcomes were
evaluated.
Results: Biceps muscle weight measurements showed all experimental groupsD0.2860.02 g/
72%, C 0.28 60.03 g/73%, B 0.29 60.04 g/74%, and A 0.29 60.04 g/80%were lighter than
group H 0.36 60.04 g, which were all statistically signicant (P<0.001). Muscle tetanus contrac-
tion force measurements were the lowest in group D35 68.6 g/69%. Groups C and B measured
41 68.5 g/75% and 40 62.2 g/77% and group A 41 69.4 g/95%, respectively. Group H showed
muscle contraction force of 52 67.2 g, which was statistically signicant when compared to
experimental groups (P<0.050.001). EMG measurements of the biceps muscles showed: group
D was 3.6 60.7 mV/69%, group C was 3.6 60.6 mV/75%, and group B was 4.2 mV60.7/81%.
Group H was5.1 60.7 mV and statistically signicant dierent when compared with experimental
groups (P<0.050.001).Axon counts of healthy ulnar-nerve (Group H) were 18496362. Axon
counts of the injured ulnar-nerve were in group B 14476579/78%, group C 1051 6367/57%
and group D 5676230/31%.
Conclusion: The donor nerve should be healthy in order to provide optimal result. A big nerve (e.
g., ulnar nerve) but injured with at least 75% axon spared is still potentially eective for transfer.
In contrast, a small nerve (e.g., intercostal nerve) once injured with 75%axon spared would be con-
sidered a suboptimal donor nerve.
1
|
INTRODUCTION
In brachial plexus injury (BPI), nerve transfer (or neurotization) is a
nerve reconstruction technique, and very often being used to reinner-
vate the distal part of an avulsed, irreparable, but important nerve with
low sequel (Chuang, 2005; Narakas, 1978). The majority of nerve trans-
fers are for motor neurotization (Alnot, 1978; Bertelli & Ghizoni, 2004;
Brown, Shah, & Mackinnon, 2009; Chuang, 2005, 2006, 2008; Chuang,
Lee, Hashem, & Wei, 1995; Mackinnon, Novak, Myckatyn, & Tung,
2005; Narakas, 1978; Oberlin, Beal, Leechavengvongs, Salon, Dauge, &
Sarcy, 1994). Functioning free muscle transplantation in BPI is also
another example of the use of nerve transfer (Chuang, 2008).
Nerve transfer in BPI can be broadly classied into proximal and
distal nerve transfer (Chuang, 2005). Proximal nerve transfer (Alnot,
1978; Chuang, 2006; Chuang, Lee, Hashem, & Wei, 1995) is a tradi-
tional technique, involving brachial plexus exploration which permits
Microsurgery 2017; 18;
DOI: 10.1002/micr.30153
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/micr V
C2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
|
1
Received: 19 June 2015
|
Revised: 1 December 2016
|
Accepted: 16 December 2016
DOI 10.1002/micr.30153
conrmation of the diagnosis of root avulsion, and the nerve coaptation
is inside the brachial plexus zones (supra-or infraclavicular). Distal nerve
transfer (Bertelli & Ghizoni, 2004; Brown, Shah, & Mackinnon, 2009;
Mackinnon, Novak, Myckatyn, & Tung, 2005; Oberlin, Beal, Leecha-
vengvongs, Salon, Dauge, & Sarcy, 1994; Tzou, Chuang, Chang, & Lu,
2014) is a newer strategy in which the nerve coaptation is performed
distal to the brachial plexus. Using parts of fascicles of ulnar/median
nerve transfer to biceps/brachialis branch of the musculocutaneous
nerve in C5-C6 root avulsion injuries is a classic example of distal nerve
transfer (Bertelli & Ghizoni, 2004; Brown, Shah, & Mackinnon, 2009;
Chuang, 2006; Mackinnon, Novak, Myckatyn, & Tung, 2005; Oberlin,
Beal, Leechavengvongs, Salon, Dauge, & Sarcy, 1994). Distal nerve
transfers have benets of direct nerve repair without nerve graft, no
scar disturbance, short operation and rehabilitation times. Distal nerve
transfers have become increasingly popular currently.
Although most patients achieved good elbow exion by ulnar
nerve fascicular transfer to the musculocutaneous nerve, some cases
still required long rehabilitation or additional procedure to enhance
the result (Bertelli & Ghizoni, 2004; Mackinnon, Novak, Myckatyn, &
Tung, 2005; Oberlin, Beal, Leechavengvongs, Salon, Dauge, & Sarcy,
1994). One reason for this variability is the fact that in traction avul-
sion injury of the BPI, multiple roots are often involved beyond the
expectation. For example, a patient has a functional hand with grossly
good grip strength. He might be a case of C5-6 two root avulsion, or
C5-7 three root avulsion with intact C8-T1, or C5-8 four root avulsion
with intact T1. In such circumstance the health of ulnar nerve (bers
from C8-T1), or median (C6-T1) is actually questionable. Although few
studies have shown that an injured nerve can be used as a donor
(Chuang & Hernon, 2012; Totosy de Zepetnek, Zung, Erdebil, &
Gordon, 1992; Tzou, Chuang, Chang, & Lu, 2014), it is often dicult
for a surgeon to judge whether a macroscopically normal-looking
nerve is suitable for transfer. The goal of this study was through
experimental rats to investigate if an injured nerve can be used as a
donor nerve for transfer, and to determine the threshold of injury
beyond which the donor nerve is no longer eective.
2
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In forty-two female SpragueDawley rats, each weighing 250 g, the
left upper limb was used as the experimental site. The ulnar nerve in
the axilla was chosen as the motor donor nerve for transfer, and its
neighboring musculocutaneous nerve as the target nerve to be neuro-
tized. They were randomly separated into ve groups based on health
of the ulnar nerves and procedure:
Group A (n56) was the positive control group, in which the ulnar
nerve was intact. In group B (n510), one quarter (25%) of the ulnar
nerve, in group C (n510), one half (50%) of the ulnar nerve and in
group D (n510), three quarter (75%) of the ulnar nerve was trans-
ected. Group E (n56) was the negative control group, in which the
whole ulnar nerve was transected, but not transferred.
The musculocutaneous nerve was divided at 1.0 cm from the
medial biceps muscle edge. The proximal stump was embedded in the
nearby pectoralis muscle to avoid collateral sprouting. In Group A-D,
the donor ulnar nerves were transected and coapted to the musculocu-
taneous nerve (Figure 1AD). In all experimental rats, the musculocuta-
neous nerve distal to the biceps branch nerve was uniformly cut and
transferred back into the biceps muscle to avoid loss of regenerated
axons (Rodriguez, Chuang, Chen, Chen, Lyu, & Ko, 2011).
2.1
|
Surgical procedures
All surgical procedures were performed by the rst author using sterile
conditions and under general anesthesia by inhalation of isouorane
(Halocarbon Laboratories, River Edge, NJ). The animals were placed in
the supine position, shaved, and prepared with antiseptic solution.
Under an operating microscope, a transverse ventral incision was made
from the clavicle down to the medial arm of the left upper forelimb.
The pectoralis muscles were elevated. The ulnar and nearby musculo-
cutaneous nerves were identied using a nerve stimulator (Vari-Stim
hand-held nerve locator/stimulator, Medtronic Xomed, Minneapolis,
MN).
At 1.5 cm distal to the median nerve origin (merging point of lat-
eral and medial cords), the ulnar nerve was penetrated by a 90nylon
needle with a variously cut surface (25, 50, and 75%), and ligated. The
ligated stitch was used for traction. Through ventero-laterally intraneu-
ral dissection, the ulnar nerve was split proximally to the point level of
median nerve bifurcation. The stump with the traction stitch was
implanted into the chest muscle to avoid collateral sprouting. The split
ulnar nerve at the point of the beginning dissection was divided and
preparing for transfer (Figure 2). The nearby musculocutaneous nerve
was cut at 1.0 cm from the medial biceps muscle edge. The transect
ulnar nerve was coapted to the musculocutaneous nerve in a tension-
free end-to-end fashion, using two 110 nylon sutures.
Closure of wounds was carried out with nylon 40sutures.Post-
operatively, animals were re-warmed and returned to their cage and
subsequently maintained on standard rat chow and water ad libitum
with a 12-h light-dark cycle. All groups were blinded for postoperative
assessments.
Regeneration for 12 weeks was allowed. Functional outcomes
were evaluated with behavioral assessment (grooming test), compound
muscle action potentials (CMAPs), biceps muscle weight, biceps tetanus
contraction force, and histomorphometry of the ulnar and musculocu-
taneous nerves with axon counts. All assessments were run bilaterally
with the nonoperative side serving as each animalsowncontrol.
2.2
|
Behavioral analysisgrooming test
Functional outcomes of the biceps muscle were evaluated using the
grooming test developed by Bertelli & Mira (1993) and Inciong,
Marrocco, & Terzis (2000) which assesses shoulder abduction and
elbow exion. Water (13 ml) was applied over the animals snout to
provoke a reproducible grooming response: attempting to remove
drops of water from their heads, animals raised and elevated their
forelimbs behind the ears, and then brought them down to the snout
and licked. Digital video recordings were assessed in slow motion to
2
|
TZOU ET AL.
categorize the forelimb function on a ve-point scale: 5 points if the
paw reached behind the ear, 3 points if the paw passed the snout but
did not reach the eye, and 1 point if the paw moved but did not reach
the snout. Multiple assessments were performed and the best score
was recorded.
2.3
|
Biceps compound muscle action potentials
At 12 weeks, after the grooming test, the ratsoperative and nonope-
rative biceps muscle and musculocutaneous nerve were exposed and
examined. Under inhalation anesthesia, a recording electrode was
placed in the biceps muscle and a subcutaneous ground electrode posi-
tioned adjacently in the electromyogram setup. Two small hook-
shaped stimulating electrodes (2-mm apart) held the musculocutaneous
gently. Stimulation was delivered for each trial by an electrical stimula-
tor (Biopac System, BSL Software Installation Package, Windows,
Goleta, CA), xed at 1 msec at a constant current between 10 mAupto
10 mA. A single shock was delivered for each trial. The musculocutane-
ous nerve CMAPs, were recorded. The similar procedure was per-
formed on the non-operativeside for control data.
FIGURE 2 The detail of ulnar nerve transect and preparation for transfer (see Text)
FIGURE 1 (A) Schematic drawing of the Group A (positive control). UNp, ulnar nerve proximal stump;,UNd, ulnar nerve distal stump; MCn,
musculocutaneous nerve; Biceps, Biceps muscle. (B) Schematic drawing of the experimental Group B (25% transected). UNp, ulnar nerve
proximal stump; UNd, ulnar nerve distal stump; MCn, musculocutaneous nerve; Biceps, Biceps muscle. (C) Schematic drawing of the
experimental Group C (50% transected). UNp, ulnar nerve proximal stump; UNd, ulnar nerve distal stump; MCn,musculocutaneous nerve;
Biceps, Biceps muscle. (D) Schematic drawing of the experimental Group D (75% transected). UNp, ulnar nerve proximal stump; UNd, ulnar
nerve distal stump; MCn, musculocutaneous nerve; Biceps, Biceps muscle
TZOU ET AL.
|
3
2.4
|
Biceps muscle tetanus contraction
force measurement
After the electrophysiological study, the biceps muscle contraction
force was assessed with a force displacement transducer and compu-
terized recording software (FT03 Force Displacement Transducers,
Grass Instruments, Quincy, MA). Force measurement followed a modi-
ed protocol for rats based on Terzis, Sweet, Dykes, & Williams (1978)
and Shibata, Breidenbach, Ogden, & Firrell (1991)procedure. The rest-
ing muscle length of the biceps was determined, and its insertion was
detached from the cubital region and then sutured to the force trans-
ducer with the muscle resting length. The shoulder, elbow and wrist
joints were immobilized with xation pins to avoid motion artifacts dur-
ing muscle-contraction measurements. Stimulating current was applied
with a bipolar platinum electrode to the musculocutaneous nerve. Per
denition, the threshold stimulus was a stimulus to produce an observ-
able muscle twitch (activating the biceps muscle) at dierent thresholds
(110 times the threshold), voltages (range: 0.6 and 1.2 V) and frequen-
cies (range: 1.060 Hz). With various stimuli, the maximal tetanic
strength was determined at 1 V and 60 Hz, and the mean maximal iso-
metric tetanic muscle contraction forces of the repeated muscle con-
traction (ve times with a pulse duration of 1.0 msec) were recorded as
grams/weight. All data were analyzed and documented with MacLab
Systems (AD Instruments, Colorado Springs, CO). The optimal rest and
the maximal tetanic tension were assessed under isometric conditions.
2.5
|
Biceps muscle weights
After all in vivo experiments were nished the animals were euthanized
with an overdose of pentobarbital. Biceps muscles were harvested and
weighed immediately.
2.6
|
Axon counts
Nerve specimens (35 mm in length in each) were obtained: injured
ulnar nerve before the split and before the coaptation site, musculocu-
taneous nerves before its entry into the biceps muscle (Figure 3), and
the healthy ulnar nerve on the nonoperative limb. Samples were xed
in 2.5% glutaraldehyde and postxed in 2% osmium tetroxide. Each
nerve was embedded in 100% Epon. One-micrometerthick transverse
sections were made from the nerve to obtain successive sections in 1-
mm intervals, which were stained with 2% toluidine blue and photo-
graphed under a light microscope with 4003magnication. Myelinated
axons were counted with 400x magnication under an Olympus BX53
microscope (Olympus Corp., Japan) using Image-Pro Plus software
(Media Cybernetics, Rockville, MA).
2.7
|
Statistical analysis
Data were expressed as mean 6standard deviation in each group. All
results were compared with values of the nonoperative right limb. To
avoid animalsweight-dependent discrepancies among animals and to
provide an internal control, results were expressed in mean absolute
values 6standard deviation and as ratios (operative: nonoperative limbs
of the same animal) (Table 1).
The KruskalWallis test was performed to compare performances
of each group regarding grooming, muscleforce contraction, muscle
weight and electromyography. Dunns test was used as a post-hoc test
when groups were signicantly dierent (P<0.05) by the Kruskal
Wallis test. A MannWhitney test was used to compare the axon
counts between the groups. Pvalues <0.05 was considered statis-
tically signicant. Statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS
Statistics software, version 20.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, 2011) by the Bio-
statistical Center for Clinical Research, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital,
Linkou, Taiwan.
3
|
RESULTS
None of the experimental rats (Group AD) reached normal status (the
value of the contralateral, nonoperative side) for any of the four param-
eters: grooming test, CMAPs, tetanic muscle contraction force, and
biceps muscle weight. Regardless of the amount of injury to the donor
nerve, all showed signicant dierences (with KruskalWallis statistical
analysis) but with various pvalues: when compared with the non-
operative side (Group H), Group D was the worst, all four tests showed
P<0.001; Group B, two tests (muscle weight and tetanic contracture
force) showed P<0.001, but two test (CMAP and grooming test)
P<0.05; Group A only one (muscle weight) showed P<0.001. (Table
1, Column I).
3.1
|
Behavioral analysis (grooming test)
The grooming test on the healthy (right) side showed the paw could
pass at least the snout and scored on average 3.3360.50 in all groups.
The experimental (left) sides showed scores of 2.6360.74 (80% of
healthy side) in group A; 2.56 60.53 (77% of healthy side) in group B;
and 2.57 60.53 (64% of healthy side) in groups C and D. Statistically
signicant dierences (from P<0.001 to P<0.05) were observed
between the experimental and healthy limbs (Table 1). Regardless of
the amount of injury to the donor nerve, none of the animals reached
FIGURE 3 Schematic drawing to illustrate the nerve biopsy sites
for istomorphometry
4
|
TZOU ET AL.
TABLE 1 Results in absolute values (gram or mV) and in ratio (% of healthy side)
Groups Biceps muscle weight Tetanic muscle contraction force Compound muscle action potentials Grooming test
 
Gram (ratio, %
of healthy side)
Gram
H: healthy
Gram (ratio, %
of healthy side)
Gram
H: healthy
mV (ratio, %
of healthy side)
mV
H: healthy
Score (ratio, %
of healthy side)
Score
H: healthy
Experiment side side Experiment side side Experiment side side Experiment side side
A: positive control 0.29 60.04
(80% 66)
0.36 60.04 40.95 69.37
(95% 613)
44.26 68.93 4.53 60.64
(95% 616)
4.81 60.65 2.63 60.74
(80% 626)
3.38 60.52
B: ulnar nerve25% Injury 0.29 60.04
(74% 611)
0.40 60.04 40.18 62.19
(77% 67)
52.41 65.40 4.24 60.72
(81% 612)
5.24 60.8 2.56 60.53
(77% 614)
3.33 60.50
C: ulnar nerve50% Injury 0.28 60.03
(73% 67)
0.39 60.03 40.92 68.51
(75% 69)
54.54 68.94 3.59 60.58
(75% 613)
4.85 60.7 2.57 60.53
(64% 613)
4.00 60.64
D: ulnar nerve75% Injury 0.28 60.02
(72% 66)
0.38 60.02 34.70 68.64
( 69% 615)
55.44 65.4 3.62 60.67
(69% 614)
5.27 60.61 2.57 60.53
(64% 613)
4.00 60.64
(I) Pvalues in absolute
values, compared to
healthy side (KW test)
Group A vs. Group H
(P<0.001), Group B vs.
Group H (P<0.001),
Group C vs. Group H
(P<0.001), Group D vs.
Group H(P<0.001)
 
 
Group B vs. Group H
(P<0.001), Group C vs.
Group H (P<0.05), Group
D vs. Group H (P<0.001)
 
 
Group B vs. Group H
(P<0.05), Group C
vs. Group H
(P<0.001), Group
D vs. Group H
(P<0.001)
 
 
Group A vs. Group H
(P<0.05), Group B
vs. Group H
(P<0.05),
Group C vs. Group H
(P<0.001),
Group D vs. Group H
(P<0.001)
 
 
(II)
Pvalues in absolute values
intergroup comparison [g,
mV] (Sig. diby post-hoc
Dunn test)
Group A vs. Group B,
Group A vs. Group C, ...No
statistic signicance.
 No statistic signicance.  No statistic
signicance.
 No statistic signi-
cance.
 
(III) Pvalues in ratio [% of
healthy side] (Sig. diby
post-hoc Dunn test)
Group A vs. Group C
(P50.0378),
 Group A vs. Group B
(P50.0026), Group A vs.
Group C (P50.0011),
Group A vs. Group D
(P<0.0001), Group B vs.
Group D (P50.02),
 Group A vs. Group B
(P50.04), Group A
vs. Group C
(P50.003), Group
A vs. Group D
(P50.0004),
Group B vs. Group
D(P50.05),
 No statistic
signicance.
 
Group H: nonoperative healthy side; Dunn test (pairwise comparison), Pvalues by Kruskal Wallis test was performed.
Ratio 5Experimental Side/Healthy Side 5% of healthy side.
TZOU ET AL.
|
5
normal status. Although the degree of injury was dierent between
groups C (50% damage) and D (75% damage), the results of both
groups were the worst (P<0.001) (Table 1).
3.2
|
Muscle weights
Biceps muscle weight was heaviest in the healthy control group, with
at least on average 0.36 60.04 g. In the experimental group, it showed
0.29 60.04 g (80% of healthy side) in group A; 0.2960.04 g (74%) in
group B; 0.28 60.03 g (73%) in group C; and 0.28 60.02 g (72%) in
group D. Biceps muscle weight following the transfers did not reach
the normal status in all experimental rats, with a signicant dierence
(P<0.001). Group D showed the lowest muscle weight (Table 1).
3.3
|
Muscle tetanus contraction force measurement
Biceps muscle tetanus contraction force decreased with the increased
injury of the ulnar nerve: group A 40.95 69.37 g (95% of healthy side),
group B 40.18 62.19 g (77%), group C 40.9268.51 g (75%), and
Group D 34.70 68.64 g (69%). All experimental groups showed statis-
tically signicant dierences when compared with the healthy side,
51.66 67.16 g (P<0.05), except Group A (P50.4). The Pvalues for
the ratio (%) showed statistically signicant dierences between groups
AandB(P50.0023), groups A and C (P50.001), groups A and D
(P<0.001), and groups B and D (P50.02) (Table 1). Group D was the
worst but similar to group C (P50.06) (Table 1).
3.4
|
Musculocutaneous nerve motor action potentials
The mean peak amplitude of the compound muscle action potentials
following individual donor stimulation on the experimental side showed
low amplitudes in groups C and D, with an average of 3.59 60.58 mV
(75%) and 3.62 60.67 mV (69%), respectively, but high amplitude in
group B scored 4.24 60.72 mV (81%), and group A 4.5360.64 mV
(95% of the healthy side). These results were signicant in groups C
and D (P<0.001). Group B (P<0.05) also showed a statistically signi-
cant dierence, compared with the healthy control side (5.0560.69
mV) (Table 1).
When using Dunns statistical analysis with absolute values for
intergroup comparisons (Table 1, Column II) it showed no signicant
dierence. However, with ratio (% of the healthy side) for internal
control (operative: non-operative, Table 1, Column III), comparison
between Group D/Group A showed most signicant dierence, then
Group C/Group A, and then Group B/Group A.
3.5
|
Axon counts
Axon counts of the musculocutaneous nerve distal to the ulnar-
musculocutaneous coaptation site, the regenerative axons in the exper-
imental rats all showed small but more sprouting axons. Group D
showed the lowest number of regenerated axons. Similar to the previ-
ous studies, intergroup comparison demonstrated (1) Group B was sim-
ilar to Group A, showing no signicant dierence with non-operative
side, Group H; and (2)Group C and Group D were similar, signicantly
lower axon counts than others.
Axon counts of the healthy ulnar nerve (Group H, Table 2) were
1849 6362 on average (normal value). Axon counts of the injured
ulnar nerve proximal of the cut surface were 1447 6579 (78%) in
group B, 1051 6367 in group C (57%), and 5676230 in group D
(31% of the healthy ulnar nerve). Axon counts of the musculocutane-
ous nerve distally to the ulnar-musculocutaneous coaptation site in
group A were 2149 6366, group B 1753 6110, group C 1431 6565,
and group D 1366 6305. The regenerative axons in all groups showed
TABLE 2 Axon counts of healthy and injured ulnar nerve as innervated musculocutaneous nerve
Groups
Axon counts of
injured Uln
Percentage of
control Uln
Axon counts
of MCn
Percentage of
control Uln
A: positive control ––2149 6366 116%
B: ulnar nerve - 25% Injury/MCn 1447 6579 78% 1753 6110 85%
C: ulnar nerve - 50% Injury/MCn 1051 6367 57% 1431 6565 77%
D: ulnar nerve - 75% Injury/MCn 567 6230 31% 1366 6305 74%
H: Control Ulnar Nerve (healthy) 1849 6362 100%  100%
p values
Group H (healthy) vs. A, B, C, D
(experimental)
x Group A vs. Group B
(P50.044),
Group A vs. Group C
(P50.005),
Group A vs. Group D
(P50.002),
Group B vs. Group D
(P50.02),
Group B vs Group H
(P50.05),
Group C vs. Group H
(P50.005),
Group D vs Group H
(P<0.0001)
Group B vs. Group D
(P50.049),
Group C vs. Group H
(P50.04), Group D vs. Group
H(P50.02)
6
|
TZOU ET AL.
smaller in axon diameter, but higher axon counts. Axon counts in the
musculocutaneous nerve were all higher than the donor nerve due to
axon sprouting. Statistically signicant dierences of axon counts were
seen in groups C and D when compared with the healthy ulnar nerve
group H: C/H, P50.005 and D/H, P<0.0001. Group D had the low-
est number of regenerated axons. There is no signicant dierence
between Group C and D (P50.81).
Statistically signicant correlation coecients were observed only
between musculocutaneous nerve axon counts and muscle weight in
group A (corr 52861; P50.028), and between musculocutaneous
nerve axon counts and muscle action potentials in group B
(corr 50.882; P50.048).
4
|
DISCUSSION
In BPI, nerve transfer is indicated in root avulsion injury within the
golden period, 5 months after injury (Chuang, 2006). Nerve transfer is
growing in importance and popularity. Oberlins method (Oberlin, Beal,
Leechavengvongs, Salon, Dauge, & Sarcy, 1994)of using one or two
fascicles of the ulnar or median nerve to the biceps motor branch of
the musculocutaneous nerve to achieve elbow exion is a good exam-
ple, but some require second procedure (such as functioning free mus-
cle transplantation) to achieve satisfactory elbow exion (Cho, Paulos,
de Resende, Kiyohara, Sorrenti, Wei,... Mattar, 2014; Chuang, 2008;
Nath, Lyons, & Bietz, 2006). Mackinnonsdouble fascicular transfer
(Mackinnon & Novak, 2005) using ulnar and median nerve fascicles to
the biceps and brachialis motor branches for elbow exion is an
enhanced procedure for elbow exion.
Clinically, we have seen patients with plexus avulsion injury, two
roots (C5-6), or three roots (C5-67) or even four roots (C5-67-8)
injury with intact T1 all could show good hand functions. Those
patients were reconstructed by double fascicular transfertechnique
for elbow exion. Most of them achieved good elbow exion (M4 mus-
cle strength) within 2-years follow-up. However, some obtain fair
results, M3, requiring long rehabilitation (even longer than 4 years). The
main reason for such dierences is due to uncertain degree of injury of
the donor nerves.
An experimental study of rabbits (Tubiana, 1988) observes that an
average of 50% of normal muscle power is achieved when one-third
(33%) of ulnar nerve is used as a donor for end-to-side nerve transfer.
Gordon et al. (1993) demonstrate that 20% motor neurons of the
donor nerve are sucient for muscle function because motor units can
enlarge up to about ve times their original size. Studies in the litera-
ture show that 3045% of axons of a donor nerve are sucient for
reinnervation of muscle to gain good muscle function (Lutz, Chuang,
Chuang, Hsu, Ma, & Wei, 2000; Witoonchart, Leechavengvongs,
Uerpairojkit, Thuvasethakul, & Wongnopsuwan 2003) which we usually
interpret as M4 in muscle strength (Midha, 2004). In fact, interpretation
of the M4 muscle strength for an acceptable functional result is not all
the same with some range of dierences. Schreiber, Byun, Khair, Rose-
nblatt, Lee, & Wolfe (2015), published an overview of axonal counts of
donor nerves and showed optimal axon counts for brachial plexus
nerve transfers to restore elbow exion, including intercostal nerve,
pectoral nerve, spinal accessory nerve, branch of median, branch of
ulnar, and thoracodorsal nerve.
In our designed experimental rat study, all four test parameters
(grooming test, biceps muscle CMAPs, tetanus contraction force, and
muscle weight recovery) showed that no group reached normal status.
Regardless of the amount of injury to the ulnar nerve, all showed poor
results, signicant dierence with non-operative side. For intergroup
comparison, the results of the Group D (75% transected) were the
worst. Group C (50% transected) showed similarity with Group D with
poor results. But Group B (25% transected) showed mostly acceptable
results as Group A (intact ulnar nerve) with no signicant dierences.
There were two facts of weakness in our designed study. First, a
12-week regeneration time might be not enough for such muscle com-
parison. Second, the ulnar nerve we chosen as a motor donor in this
study, is actually a big and powerful nerve. When performing ulnar
nerve 50% transected (Group C, for exampling) and intraneural dissec-
tion for 1.5 cm in distance, its damage was actually higher than 50%
(Figure 2). Similarly, 25% transected ulnar nerve in the Group B, its
axons preserved for transfer was actually <75%. This is why we highly
expect that the Group B with 75% axons preserved will potentially
provide the similar eects as the Group A. Further studies for these
questions are warranted.
5
|
CONCLUSION
The results of using an injured motor nerve for transfer are directly
proportional to the size (axon counts) and damage of the donor nerve
sustained. The donor nerve should be healthy in order to provide opti-
mal result. If the donor nerve is a big nerve (like ulnar nerve) but
injured, at least 75% axon spared is still eective for transfer. In con-
trast, a small nerve (like intercostal nerve) once injured, although with
75% axon spared, would be considered a suboptimal donor nerve.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank research assistants Ms. Pei-Ju Chen and Ms. Ruby
Yih-Ru Chang for their professional and continuous technical assis-
tance throughout this study; also Ms. Hsiao-Jung Tseng M.P.H. from
Biostatistical Center for Clinical Research, Chang Gung Memorial Hos-
pital, Taoyuan, Taiwan, for her statistical support and analysis of the
data, as Maria Prieto Barea for creating parts of the gures.
DISCLOSURES
The authors hereby declare that they have no conict of interest in
any products used/tested in this study and have nothing to declare.
REFERENCES
Alnot JY (1987). Traumatic paralysis of the brachial plexus: Preoperative
problems and therapeutic indications. In J. K. Terzis (Eds.), Microre-
construction of nerve injuries (p 325). Philadelphia: WB Saunders.
Bertelli JA, Ghizoni MF. (2004). Reconstruction of C5 and C6 brachial
plexus avulsion injury by multiple nerve transfers: Spinal accessory to
TZOU ET AL.
|
7
suprascapular, ulnar fascicles to biceps branch, and triceps long or
lateral head branch to axillary nerve. Journal of Hand Surgery,29,
131139.
Bertelli JA, Mira JC. (1993). Behavioral evaluating methods in the objec-
tive clinical assessment of motor function after experimental brachial
plexus reconstruction in the rat. Journal of Neuroscience Methods,46,
203208.
Brown JM, Shah MN, Mackinnon SE. (2009). Distal nerve transfers: A
biology-based rationale. Neurosurgery Focus,26, E12.
Cho AB, Paulos RG, de Resende MR, Kiyohara LY, Sorrenti L, Wei TH,
BolligerNeto R, Mattar Junior R. (2014). Median nerve fascicle trans-
fer versus ulnar nerve fascicle transfer to the biceps motor branch in
C5-C6 and C5-C7 brachial plexus injuries: Nonrandomized prospec-
tive study of 23 consecutive patients. Microsurgery 34, 511515.
Chuang DC. (2005). Nerve transfers in adult brachial plexus injuries: My
methods. Hand Clinics,21,7182.
Chuang DC. (2006). Adult brachial plexus injuries. In S. J. Mathes and V.
R. Hentz (Eds.), Plastic surgery (Vol. 7, pp. 515538). Philadelphia:
Saunders Elsevier.
Chuang DC. (2008). Nerve transfer with functioning free muscle trans-
plantation. Hand Clinics,24, 377388.
Chuang DC, Hernon C. (2012). Minimum 4-year follow-up on contralat-
eral C7 nerve transfers for brachial plexus injuries. Journal of Hand
Surgery,37(A), 270276.
Chuang DC, Lee GW, Hashem F, Wei FC. (1995). Restoration of
shoulder abduction by nerve transfer in avulsed brachial plexus
injury: Evaluation of 99 patients with various nerve transfers. Plastic
and Reconstruction Surgery,96, 122128.
Gordon T, Yang JF, Ayer K, Stein RB, Tyreman N. (1993). Recovery
potential of muscle after partial denervation: A comparison between
rats and humans. Brain Research Bulletin,30, 477482.
Inciong JG, Marrocco WC, Terzis JK. (2000). Ecacy of intervention
strategies in a brachial plexus global avulsion model in the rat. Plastic
Reconstruction Surgery,105, 20592071.
Lutz BS, Chuang DC, Chuang SS, Hsu JC, Ma SF, Wei FC. (2000). Nerve
transfer to the median nerve using parts of the ulnar and radial
nerves in the rabbitEects on motor recovery of the median nerve
and donor nerve morbidity. Journal of Hand Surgery,25, 329335.
Mackinnon SE, Novak CB, Myckatyn TM, Tung TH. (2005). Results of
reinnervation of the biceps and brachialis muscles with a double fas-
cicular transfer for elbow exion. Journal of Hand Surgery (American
Volume) 30, 978985.
Midha R. (2004). Nerve transfers for severe brachial plexus injuries: A
review. Neurosurgery Focus,1516, E5.
Narakas A. (1978). Surgical treatment of traction injuries of the brachial
plexus. Clinical Orthopaedics Related Research,133,7190.
Nath RK, Lyons AB, Bietz G. (2006). Physiological and clinical advantages
of median nerve fascicle transfer to the musculocutaneous nerve fol-
lowing brachial plexus root avulsion injury. Journal of Neurosurgery,
105, 830834.
Oberlin C, Beal D, Leechavengvongs S, Salon A, Dauge MC, Sarcy JJ.
(1994). Nerve transfer to biceps muscle using a part of ulnar nerve
for C5-C6 avulsion of the brachial plexus: Anatomical study and
report of four cases. Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume),19,
232237.
Rodriguez A, Chuang DCC, Chen KT, Chen RF, Lyu RK, Ko YS. (2011).
Comparative study of single-, double- and triple-nerve transfer to a
common target: Experimental study of rat brachial plexus. Plastic and
Reconstruction Surgery,127, 11551162.
Schreiber JJ, Byun DJ, Khair MM, Rosenblatt L, Lee SK, Wolfe SW.
(2015). Optimal axon counts for brachial plexus nerve transfers to
restore elbow exion. Plastic and Reconstruction Surgery,135,
135e141.
Shibata M, Breidenbach WC, Ogden L, Firrell J. (1991). Comparison of
one- and two-stage nerve grafting of the rabbit median nerve. Jour-
nal of Hand Surgery,16(A), 262268.
Terzis JK, Sweet RC, Dykes RW, Williams HB. (1978). Recovery of func-
tion in free muscle transplants using microneurovascular anastomo-
ses. Journal of Hand Surgery,3(A), 3759.
Totosy de Zepetnek JE, Zung HV, Erdebil S, Gordon T. (1992). Innerva-
tion ratio is an important determinant of force in normal and reinner-
vated rat tibialis anterior muscles. Journal of Neurophysiology,67,
13851403.
Tubiana R. (1988). Clinical examination and functional assessment of the
upper limb after peripheral nerve lesion. In R. Tubiana (Ed.), The hand
(pp. 455). Philadelphia: WB Saunders.
Tzou CH, Chuang DC, Chang TN, Lu JC. (2014). The impact of dierent
degrees of injured C7 nerve transfer: An experimental rat study. Plas-
tic Reconstruction Surgery Global Open,2, e230.
Witoonchart K, Leechavengvongs S, Uerpairojkit C, Thuvasethakul P,
Wongnopsuwan V. (2003). Nerve transfer to deltoid muscle using
the nerve to the long head of the triceps, Part I: An anatomic feasi-
bility study. J Hand Surg Am,28, 628632.
How to cite this article: Tzou-CH, Lu C-YJ, Chang TN-J, and
Chuang DC-C. Can an injured nerve be used as a donor nerve
for distal nerve transfer?An experimental study in rats. Micro-
surgery. 2016;00:18. doi:10.1002/micr.30153.
8
|
TZOU ET AL.
... 16 Tzou et al. also showed that there was little difference with varying degrees of donor nerve injury and that a crushed nerve was still powerful enough to be used as a donor. [17][18][19] The possible mechanism may relate to the compensatory enlargement of the remaining intact motor units. 20, 21 Schreiber et al. 22 studied the donor nerves in Mackinnon/Oberlin II double fascicular transfer. ...
... The nerve stimulator was not used routinely; only those rats whose freed ulnar nerve before cutting it responded with finger and wrist flexion or intrinsic function were included in the study. 18 The functional outcomes were studied at both the recipient (biceps and brachialis muscles) and donor sites (forearm flexor muscles). The grooming test, weighing muscles, retrograde labeling of the motor and sensory neurons, and immunohistochemistry were performed to evaluate outcomes, as described below. ...
... 34 Tzou et al. transferred approximately 25 percent and approximately 75 percent of the ulnar nerve to the musculocutaneous nerve with findings of functional muscle in both cases. 18 The study concluded that the donor nerve should be healthy to provide an optimal result. An injured large nerve such as the ulnar nerve, sparing at least 75 percent of the nerve fibers, is still potentially effective for transfer. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Loss of elbow flexion commonly occurs following acute brachial plexus injury. The double fascicular transfer (DFT) is often used in acute C5-C6 and C5-C7 root injuries, but rarely applied in cases involving concomitant C8 or T1 root injury. We designed a rat model using varying severities of lower trunk (LT) injury to determine whether partial injury to the LT affects nerve transfers for elbow flexion. Methods: There were four different rat groups in which 0%, 25%, 75% or 100% of the donor LT remained intact. One fourth of the cross-sectional area of the ulnar nerve was then transferred to the musculocutaneous nerve immediately. We assessed outcomes using a grooming test, muscle mass, retrograde labeling of sensory/motor neurons that regenerated axons, and immunohistochemical stain of regenerated axons. Results: Five months after nerve transfer, rats that underwent partial injury of the LT fared significantly worse than the rats in whom the donor LT remained 100% intact, but significant better than the rats with 0% intact LT. Rats with 25% or 75% of the LT intact recovered equivalent function, both at the donor and recipient sites. Conclusions: Although relatively weak compared with the 100% intact donor LT group, the partially injured donor nerve was still functional; even though the nerve sustained a partial injury the residual axons reinnervated the target muscles. The power of the muscles following either 25% and 75% injuries were equal after the recovery. Resorting to this approach may be useful in cases in which no alternatives are available.
... When available, nerve transfer using a flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU) branch of the ulnar nerve as a donor nerve is the most reliable method for restoring elbow flexion in patients with brachial plexus injury (BPI). The high success rate seen with this transfer 17 has led peripheral nerve surgeons to consider an FCU branch as a donor nerve even when it is compromised 18 . However, results reported by Lovy et al. 19 may cause surgeons to reconsider the use of a compromised FCU branch. ...
Article
Background: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been used because of its perceived advantages in reducing surgical site infections, wound complications, and the need for further surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess the infection rates, wound complications, length of stay, and financial burden associated with NPWT use in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: We performed a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) systematic review of the existing literature on using NPWT in primary and revision TKA. PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library were utilized. The risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. Results: Twelve articles that evaluated 1,403 primary TKAs and 279 revision TKAs were reviewed. NPWT significantly reduced complication rates in revision TKA. However, there was no significant difference in infection rates between NPWT and regular dressings in primary or revision TKA. NPWT use in primary TKA significantly increased the risk of blistering, although no increase in reoperations was noted. The analysis showed a possible reduction in length of stay associated with NPWT use for both primary and revision TKA, with overall health-care cost savings. Conclusions: Based on a meta-analysis of the existing literature, we do not recommend the routine use of NPWT. However, in high-risk revision TKA and selected primary TKA cases, NPWT reduced wound complications and may have health-care cost savings.
Chapter
Clinical evaluation in brachial plexus injury is the most essential step for preoperative and postoperative judgments. The definite diagnosis of the brachial plexus injury is based on the detailed physical and neurological examination, NCV/EMG, and image study, confirmed by the intraoperative findings. The majority of BPIs result from closed traction trauma. The degree and extent of injury are difficult to be judged at acute stage and the delay exploration at 4–6 months after the primary injury is recommended. In this chapter, the operative choices are implemented according to Chuang’s four levels of brachial plexus injury classification. Nerve reconstruction is the first priority for most cases in the acute stage. Proximal nerve graft/transfer offers more accurate diagnosis and proper treatment to restore shoulder and elbow function simultaneously. Distal nerve or close target nerve transfer can offer more efficient and effective functional outcome, and therefore, is more and more popular in recent years. Combined, both strategies in primary nerve reconstruction are especially recommended when there is no healthy or not enough donor nerve available. The palliative surgeries such as FFMT, local muscle or tendon transfer, and arthrodesis are only done when the nerve reconstruction failed or for overall outcome augmentation. Postoperative care of splinting and rehabilitation including physiotherapy (to avoid joint stiffness), muscle stimulation (to delay muscle atrophy), brain cognition, biofeedback, and occupational therapy are indispensable. The final goal is to restore the functional limb and the patient can return back to the school or society successfully.
Article
Background Loss of elbow flexion is a common sequela of acute brachial plexus injuries (BPIs). The Mackinnon/Oberlin-II double fascicular transfer (DFT) is a widely used method to restore this function in acute C5–6 or C5–7 injuries. This study attempted to evaluate if this technique can be applied reliably for cases involving C8 and/or T1 injuries. Methods Adult patients with acute BPIs who underwent the Mackinnon/Oberlin-II DFT in our center between 2008 and 2018 were retrospectively identified. Group I (n = 37) included patients with only C5–6 or C5–7 injury, while group II (n = 32) patients presented C5–8 ± T1 injuries. The demographic data, pre- and postoperative neurologic evaluations, electrodiagnostic studies, and grip strength assessment were collected. Results A total of 69 patients met the inclusion criteria. Preoperatively, the patients in group II presented poorer nerve conduction and electromyography in both the median and the ulnar nerves and the supply muscles. The percentage of M3 achievement in both groups was 91.9 versus 87.5% and M4 was 73.0 and 71.9%, respectively, which both were not statically significant but the achievement of group II was slower than the group I, 1 to 2 months slower, respectively. Both groups had 57.57 and 46.0% of the postoperative grip power compared with the healthy side, the result of shoulder abduction was not different (p = 0.480). Conclusion With careful preoperative evaluation, early intervention, appropriate intraoperative functional fascicle selection, and aggressive postoperative rehabilitation, indications for the Mackinnon/Oberlin-II DFT technique can safely include acute C5–8 injuries and even partial T1 acute BPIs.
Article
Electrodiagnostic studies may help orthopaedic surgeons to identify and confirm nerve pathology, determine severity of disease, localize the lesion, identify concomitant or alternative pathology, and prognosticate potential outcomes with nonoperative or operative treatment. Surgeons should recognize the indications for electrodiagnostic studies, principles of their performance, and how to assess the primary data generated by the examination and how it can inform their treatment plans.
Article
Full-text available
Ipsilateral C7 nerve transfer is an available procedure in C5C6 2-root avulsion injury of the brachial plexus. However, concomitant injury of a normal-looking C7 cannot be ruled out. The efficiency of a concomitant injury of C7 transfer was investigated. Forty-two Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly assigned to 5 groups. They all underwent a 2-stage procedure. In the first stage from dorsal spine approach, left C5 and C6 roots were avulsed and C7 was crushed with jeweler's forceps with different degrees: group A (n = 6), C7 not injured; group B (n = 10), C7 crushed for 10 seconds; group C (n = 10), C7 crushed for 30 seconds; group D (n = 10), C7 doubly crushed for 60 seconds; and group E (n = 6), C7 transected and not repaired. Four weeks later in the second stage, the C7 was reexplored via volar approach, transected, and coapted to the musculocutaneous nerve. At 12 weeks following the nerve transfer, functional outcomes were assessed. Grooming test, muscle weight, electromyography, and muscle tetanic contraction force all showed that the biceps muscles were significantly worse in group C (moderate crush) and group D (severe crush). Group B (mild crush) and group A (uninjured) showed no difference. Group E (C7 cut and not repaired) was the worst. An injured but grossly normal-looking ipsilateral C7 can be used as a motor source but with variable results. The result is directly proportional to the severity of injury, potentially implying that better results will be achieved when longer regeneration time is allowed.
Article
Nerve transfer surgery has revolutionized the management of traumatic brachial plexus injures. However, the optimal size ratio of donor to recipient nerve has yet to be elucidated. The authors investigated the axon count ratios of ulnar and median fascicular transfers to restore elbow flexion. The authors hypothesized that donor nerve axon counts would be correlated with historical success of various nerve transfers used to restore elbow flexion. Ten cadaveric specimens were used for a histomorphologic analysis of fascicular nerve transfers. Review of previously published axon counts and clinical results following transfer to the musculocutaneous nerve to restore elbow flexion was performed for the following donor nerves: medial pectoral, spinal accessory, intercostal, thoracodorsal, ulnar, and median fascicular. The average number of fascicles identified was 7.9 in the ulnar nerve and 8.0 in the median nerve. The mean fascicular axon count was 1318 for the ulnar nerve and 1860 for the median nerve. Mean recipient nerve axon count was 1826 for the musculocutaneous biceps branch and 1840 for the brachialis branch. A significant correlation between axon count and clinical results of transfers to restore elbow flexion was observed. Donor-to-recipient nerve axon count ratios below 0.7:1 were associated with a decreased likelihood of a successful outcome. In nerve transfers to restore elbow flexion, an appropriate size match between donor and recipient nerves appears to be a factor affecting clinical success. These data support a donor-to-recipient axon count ratio greater than 0.7:1 as the goal for brachial plexus nerve transfers to restore elbow flexion.
Article
The purpose of this study was to observe whether the results of the median nerve fascicle transfer to the biceps are equivalent to the classical ulnar nerve fascicle transfer, in terms of elbow flexion strength and donor nerve morbidity. Twenty-five consecutive patients were operated between March 2007 and July 2013. The patients were divided into two groups. In Group 1 (n = 8), the patients received an ulnar nerve fascicle transfer to the biceps motor branch. In Group 2 (n = 15), the patients received a median nerve fascicle transfer to the biceps motor branch. Two patients with follow-up less than six months were excluded. Both groups were similar regarding age (P = 0.070), interval of injury (P = 0.185), and follow-up period (P = 0.477). Elbow flexion against gravity was achieved in 7 of 8 (87.5%) patients in Group 1, versus 14 of 15 (93.3%) patients in Group 2 (P = 1.000). The level of injury (C5-C6 or C5-C7) did not affect anti-gravity elbow flexion recovery in both the groups (P = 1.000). It was concluded that the median nerve fascicle transfer to the biceps is as good as the ulnar nerve fascicle transfer, even in C5-C7 injuries. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery, 2014.
Article
Contralateral C7 (CC7) transfer for brachial plexus injuries (BPI) can benefit finger sensation but remains controversial regarding restoration of motor function. We report our 20-year experience using CC7 transfer for BPI, all of which had at least 4 years of follow-up. A total of 137 adult BPI patients underwent CC7 transfer from 1989 to 2006. Of these patients, 101 fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this study. A single surgeon performed all surgeries. A vascularized ulnar nerve graft, either pedicled or free, was used for CC7 elongation. The vascularized ulnar nerve graft was transferred to the median nerve (group 1, 1 target) in 55 patients, and to the median and musculocutaneous nerves (group 2, 2 targets) in 23 patients. In another 23 patients (group 3, 2 targets, 2 stages), the CC7 was transferred to the median nerve (17 patients) or to the median and musculocutaneous nerve (6 patients) during the first stage, followed by functioning free muscle transplantation for finger flexion. We considered finger flexion strength greater or equal to M3 to be a successful functional result. Success rates of CC7 transfer were 55%, 39%, and 74% for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In addition, the success rate for recovery of elbow flexion (strength M3 or better) in group 2 was 83%. In reconstruction of total brachial plexus root avulsion, the best option may be to adopt the technique of using CC7 transfer to the musculocutaneous and median nerve, followed by FFMT in the early stage (18 mo or less) for finger flexion. Such a technique can potentially improve motor recovery of elbow and finger flexion in a shorter rehabilitation period (3 to 4 y) and, more importantly, provide finger sensation to the completely paralytic limb. Therapeutic II.
Article
Loss of biceps muscle function is a significant disability after brachial plexus root avulsion injuries. Nerve grafting techniques to reestablish anatomical and functional continuity between the spinal cord and the avulsed root have not proven successful. Using nerve transfers for functional restoration of root avulsion injuries appears to be effective and has physiological advantages for reducing regeneration distances. Since the early 1990s, the Oberlin technique of transferring ulnar nerve fascicles to the motor branch of the musculocutaneous nerve has been the preferred operative technique for reinnervation and restoration of biceps muscle function. In the current study the authors examine the efficacy of an alternative technique using median nerve fascicles transferred to the musculocutaneous nerve to reinnervate the biceps muscle. Forty consecutive patients with combined C5-6 brachial plexus root avulsions were evaluated pre- and postoperatively according to the British Medical Research Council Motor Grading Scale. Personal interviews concerning quality of life (QOL) after surgery were conducted and scored based on standards set by the World Health Organization. All patients showed some degree of improvement in biceps muscle function. Thirty-six (90%) of the 40 patients regained movement against gravity. The patients had a 77% improvement in overall QOL after the surgery; most notably, 92% of the patients reported their lack of need for medication and 75% a significant lessening of postoperative pain. Redirection of part of the healthy median nerve resulted in no measurable functional deficits, and only 28 patients reported minor sensory disturbances in the first web space for an average of 3 months after surgery. Median nerve fascicle transfer resulted in a significant improvement in biceps muscle function with an acceptable level of morbidity and should be considered an effective, and in many cases preferable, alternative to ulnar nerve fascicle transfer.
Article
The purpose of this study was to investigate the recovery of a common target motor function after different single and combined motor nerve transfers in rat brachial plexus model. The musculocutaneous nerve and biceps muscle were chosen as the target for neurotization. The phrenic, pectoral, and suprascapular nerves were selected as the neurotizers. Forty-two Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly assigned to seven groups (six rats in each group): single-neurotizer transfer (three groups), double-neurotizer transfer (three groups), and triple-neurotizer transfer (one group). The contralateral intact forelimb was used as a control. Functional outcomes were measured by grooming test, electrophysiological study, muscle contraction strength, muscle weight, and axon counts. At 12 weeks, 40 operative rats were studied (two had died). In the single-neurotizer transfer, all three transfers showed no significant difference in motor recovery of the biceps. In the double-neurotizer transfer groups, the worst results were seen in group 6 (combined pectoral and suprascapular nerve transfer) despite increasing axon counts. This study may potentially suggest: (1) single-neurotizer transfer will not have synergistic or antagonistic effects; (2) two neurotizers with functional antagonism will significantly downgrade motor recovery of the neurotized muscle despite increasing axon counts; (3) multiple motor neurotizer transfers may not always provide a better outcome, although increasing axons may outweigh antagonistic effects; and (4) phrenic nerve transfer alone did not upgrade the functional outcome despite its automatic discharge. Any nerve transfer combined with phrenic nerve transfer, however, showed improved functional results.
Article
Peripheral nerve injuries can result in devastating numbness and paralysis. Surgical repair strategies have historically focused on restoring the original anatomy with interposition grafts. Distal nerve transfers are becoming a more common strategy in the repair of nerve deficits as these interventions can restore function in months as opposed to more than a year with nerve grafts. The changes that take place over time in the cell body, distal nerve, and target organ after axotomy can compromise the results of traditional graft placement and may at times be better addressed with the use of distal nerve transfers. A carefully devised nerve transfer offers restoration of function with minimal (if any) detectable deficits at the donor site. A new understanding of cortical plasticity along with patient reeducation allow for good return of strength and function after nerve transfer.
Article
In this article, the author focuses on functioning free muscle transplantation (FFMT), an advanced microneurovascular technique indicated in patients who have an advanced injury with a major brachial muscle or muscle group loss or denervation and in whom no locally available or ideal musculotendinous donor unit exists. FFMTs have been successfully applied clinically in cases involving adult brachial plexus palsy, obstetric brachial plexus palsy, facial palsy, severe Volkmann's ischemia, and severe crushing and traction injuries of the forearm or arm with major muscle loss. As the author notes, FFMT is a new challenge for the reconstructive surgeon. He outlines the eight major principles for nerve transfer with FFMT, basing his conclusions on the more than 333 patients who received FFMT between 1995 and 2005 in his hospital.
Article
Using the rectus femoris muscle of the rabbit, the functional capabilities of the normal and replanted muscle were studied after tenotomy, simple neurovascular repair, and orthotopic and heterotopic transplantation. Tenotomy alone altered the function more than did neurovascular repair, and although a muscle survived after replantation, it never achieved the functional capability of the normal muscle, maximum working capacity being only one fourth of the normal.