Outcomes of surgical treatment of brachial plexus injuries using nerve grafting and nerve transfers

Between 1993 and 1998, 32 male patients with brachial plexus injuries were surgically treated. Eighteen interfascicular grafting and 71 extraplexal neurotization procedures were performed separately or in combination. Donor nerves were the intercostals, spinal accessory, phrenic, contralateral C7, and cervical plexus, in order of frequency. Patients were followed for a minimum of 24 (average, 35) months. Biceps function was best following grafting the musculocutaneous nerve itself, or neurotization with the phrenic nerve (100 percent grade 4), followed by neurotization with the intercostals (89.5 percent grade 3 or more) and last, grafting the C5 root or upper trunk (grade 3 in one of three patients). Phrenic to suprascapular neurotization produced the best results of shoulder abduction (40 to 90 degrees), followed by combined neurotization of the spinal accessory to suprascapular and phrenic to axillary (20 to 90 degrees). Sensory recovery over the lateral forearm and palm varied from S2 to S3+, according to the method of reconstruction.     

Hemihypoglossal nerve transfer in brachial plexus repair: technique and results

OBJECTIVE: In multiple avulsions of the brachial plexus, the search for extraplexal donor nerves in the hope of achieving motor neurotization is a major goal. We explored the possibility of using the hypoglossal nerve as a transfer point to reanimate muscles in the upper limb. METHODS: The hypoglossal nerve was used as a donor nerve for neurotization in seven patients with avulsive injuries of the brachial plexus. The surgical technique--an end-to-side microsuture using approximately half of the nerve fascicles--is basically the same as that used in the hypoglossal nerve-facial nerve jump graft, which is a well-known technique in facial nerve reanimation. The recipient nerves were the suprascapular (two patients), the musculocutaneous (one patient), the posterior division of the upper trunk (two patients), and the medial contribution to the median nerve (two patients). RESULTS: In spite of a connection documented by electromyography and selective activation in three of seven patients, the functional results in our patients were extremely disappointing: no patient had an outcome better than M1 in the reinnervated muscles. CONCLUSION: This technique was of no help to the patients and thus has been abandoned at our institution.     

Nerve transfer for treatment of brachial plexus injury：comparison study between the transfer of partial median and ulnar nerves and that of phrenic and spinal accessary nerves

Objective:To compare the effect of using partial median and ulnar nerves for treatment of C5-6 orC5-7 avulsion of the brachial plexus with that of using phrenic and spinal accessary nerves.Methods:The patients were divided into 2groups randomly according to different surgical procedures.Twelve cases were involved in the first group.The phrenic nerve was transferred to the musculocutaneous nerve or through a sural nerve graft,and the spinal accessary nerve was to the suprascapular nerve.Eleven cases were classified into the second group.A part of the fascicles of median nerve was transferred to be coapted with the motor fascicle of musculocutaneous nerve and a part of fascicles of ulnar nerve was transferred to the axillary nerve.The cases were followed up from 1to 3years and the clinical outcome was compared between the two groups.     

Repair of brachial plexus lesions by end-to-side side-to-side grafting neurorrhaphy: experience based on 11 cases

Eleven brachial plexus lesions were repaired using end-to-side side-to-side grafting neurorrhaphy in root ruptures, in phrenic and spinal accessory nerve neurotizations, in contralateral C7 neurotization, and in neurotization using intact interplexus roots or cords. The main aim was to approximate donor and recipient nerves and promote regeneration through them. Another indication was to augment the recipient nerve, when it had been neurotized or grafted to donors of dubious integrity, when it was not completely denervated, when it had been neurotized to a nerve with a suboptimal number of fibers, when it had been neurotized to distant donors delaying its regeneration, and when it had been neurotized to a donor supplying many recipients. In interplexus neurotization, the main indication was to preserve the integrity of the interplexus donors, as they were not sacrificeable. The principles of end-to-side neurorrhaphy were followed. The epineurium was removed. Axonal sprouting was induced by longitudinally slitting and partially transecting the donor and recipient nerves, by increasing the contact area between both of them and the nerve grafts, and by embedding the grafts into the split predegenerated injured nerve segments. Agonistic donors were used for root ruptures and for phrenic and spinal accessory neurotization, but not for contralateral C7 or interplexus neurotization. Single-donor single-recipient neurotization was successfully followed in phrenic neurotization of the suprascapular (3 cases) and axillary (1 case) nerves, spinal accessory neurotization of the suprascapular nerve (1 case), and dorsal part of contralateral C7 neurotization of the axillary nerve (2 cases). Apart from this, recipient augmentation necessitated many donor to single-recipient neurotizations. This was successfully performed using phrenic-interplexus root to suprascapular transfers (2 cases), phrenic-contralateral C7 to suprascapular transfer (1 case), and spinal accessory-interplexus root to musculocutaneous transfer (1 case). Both recipient augmentation and increasing the contact area between grafts and recipients necessitated single or multiple donor to many recipient neurotizations. This was applied in root ruptures (3 cases), with results comparable to those obtained in classical nerve-grafting techniques. It was also applied in ventral C7 transfer to the lateral or medial cords (3 cases) with functional recovery occurring in the biceps and pronator teres muscles, but not in dorsal C7 transfer to the axillary and radial nerves (3 cases) with functional recovery occurring in the deltoid and triceps muscles, and in whole C7 transfer to C5, 6, 7, 8T1 roots with functional recovery occurring in the deltoid (M4), biceps (M4), pronator teres (M4), and triceps (M3) (3 cases), and less so in the flexor carpi ulnaris and FDP (M3) (1 case) and the extensor digitorum longus (M3) (1 case). Contralateral C7 transfer to the lateral and posterior cords (4 cases) was followed by cocontractions that took 1 year to improve and that involved the rotator cuff, deltoid, biceps, and pronator teres (all agonists). Functional recovery in the triceps muscle was less than in the above muscles. Contralateral C7 transfer to C5-7 (1 case) was followed by cocontractions that took 1 year to resolve and that occurred between the deltoid, biceps, and flexor digitorum profundus. Interplexus root neurotization was done only in conjunction with other neurotization techniques, and so its role is difficult to judge. Though the same applies to regenerated lateral cord transfer to the posterior cord (2 cases), the successful results obtained from medial cord neurotization to the axillary, musculocutaneous, and radial nerves (1 case), and from ulnar and median nerve neurotization to the radial nerve (1 case), show that neurotization at the interplexus cord level may play a role in brachial plexus regeneration and may even be used to neurotize nerves and muscles distal to the elbow. The timing of repair was within 6 months after injury, except for 2 cases. In the first case, contralateral C7 transfer was successfully performed more than 1 year after injury. The second case was an obstetric palsy operated upon at age 8. Deterioration in motor power of the donor muscles that improved in 6 months was observed in 2 cases of interplexus neurotization at the cord level, because of looping the sural nerve grafts tightly around the donor nerves. Deterioration in donor-muscle motor power as a consequence of end-to-side neurorrhaphy was noted in the obstetric palsy case, when the flexor carpi radialis (donor) became grade 3 instead of grade 4. This was associated with cocontractions between it and the extensors. It took nearly 1 year to improve.     

Surgical treatment for total root avulsion type brachial plexus injuries by neurotization: A prospective comparison study between total and hemicontralateral C7 nerve root transfer

Purpose: We conducted a clinical study to evaluate the effects of neurotization, especially comparing the total contralateral C7 (CC7) root transfer to hemi‐CC7 transfer, on total root avulsion brachial plexus injuries (BPI). Methods: Forty patients who received neurotization for BPI were enrolled in this prospective study. Group 1 (n = 20) received hemi‐CC7 transfer for hand function, while group 2 (n = 20) received total‐CC7 transfer. Additional neurotization included spinal accessory, phrenic, and intercostal nerve transfer for shoulder and elbow function. The results were evaluated with an average of 6 years follow‐up. Results: Group 1 had fewer donor site complications (15%) than group 2 (45%); group 2 had significantly better hand M3 and M4 motor function (65%) than group 1 (30%; P = 0.02). There was no difference in sensory recovery. Significantly, better shoulder function was obtained by simultaneous neurotization on both suprascapular and axillary nerves. Conclusions: Total‐CC7 transfer had better hand recovery but more donor complications than hemi‐CC7. Neurotization on both supra‐scapular and axillary nerves improved shoulder recovery. © 2013 The Authors. Microsurgery published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery 34:91–101, 2014.     

Clinical results of contralateral C7 root neurotization to the median nerve in brachial plexus injuries with total root avulsions

This prospective study was carried out to assess motor and sensory recovery after contralateral C7 root to median nerve neurotization in brachial plexus injuries with total root avulsions. The survey was carried out from 1993 to 1995 and the patients were followed up for at least 3 years. There were 96 male patients with ages ranging from 13 to 48 years. All had a unilateral brachial plexus injury with avulsion of all roots. This was confirmed by clinical assessment and exploration. The anterior part of the contralateral C7 root was used for neurotization via a reversed pedicular ulnar nerve graft and the proximal end of the graft was connected to the median nerve. Furthermore, phrenic nerve to suprascapular nerve and spinal accessory nerve (via a sural nerve graft) to musculocutaneous nerve neurotizations were also carried out to obtain shoulder abduction and elbow flexion. At the 3 year follow-up, most patients had encouraging recovery of sensory function in the hand but motor function of the forearm and hand muscles was rather poor. Acceptable motor function was found in only 50 to 60% of the patients who were younger than 18 years.     

Nerve reconstruction: A cohort study of 93 cases of global brachial plexus palsy

Introduction:

Brachial plexus injury leading to flail upper limb is one of the most disabling injuries. Neglect of the injury and delay in surgeries may preclude reinnervation of the paralysed muscles. Currently for such injuries nerve transfers are the preferred procedures. We here present a series of 93 cases of global brachial plexus palsy treated with nerve transfers.

Materials and Methods:

Ninety-three cases of global palsies out of 384 cases of brachial plexus injury operated by the senior surgeon (AB) were selected. Age varied from 4 to 51 years with 63 patients in 20 to 40 age group and all patients having a minimum follow up of at least 1 year post surgery ranging up to 130 months. The delay before surgery ranged from 15 days to 16 months (mean 3.2 months). The aim of the surgery was to restore the elbow flexion, shoulder abduction, triceps function and wrist and finger flexion in that order of priority. The major nerve transfers used were spinal accessory to suprascapular nerve, intercostal to musculocutaneous nerve and pectoral nerves, contralateral C7 to median and radial nerves. Nerve stumps were used whenever available (30 patients).

Results:

Recovery of ≥ grade 3 power was noted in biceps in 73% (68/93) of patients, shoulder abduction in 89% (43/49), pectoralis major in 100% (8/8). Recovery of grade 2 triceps power was seen in 80% (12/16) patients with nerve transfer to radial nerve. Derotation osteotomies of humerus (n=13) and wrist fusion (n=14) were the most common secondary procedures performed to facilitate alignment and movements of the affected limb. Better results were noted in 59 cases where direct nerve transfers were done (without nerve graft).

Conclusion:

Acceptable function (restoration of biceps power ≥3) can be obtained in more than two thirds (73%) of these global brachial plexus injuries by using the principles of early exploration and nerve transfer with rehabilitation.     

肋间神经移位肩胛上神经的解剖学研究

目的探讨第3～6肋间神经移位肩胛上神经重建肩关节外展功能的可行性。方法取15具30侧成人躯干标本,解剖测量第3～6肋间神经自腋中线至锁骨中线可切取长度以及自腋中线至锁骨中点(拟定神经吻合点)的移位距离,并进行统计学比较。结果 30侧标本中,第3、4肋间神经均可切取自腋中线至锁骨中线范围内的全段神经,且可切取长度均较移位距离长(P<0.01)。6侧第5肋间神经及16侧第6肋间神经在未到达锁骨中线时被肋软骨覆盖,其中第5肋间神经可切取长度与移位距离相似(P>0.01),第6肋间神经可切取长度较移位距离短(P<0.01)。肩胛上神经通过游离切断,可翻转至锁骨中点下方2 cm以上。第5肋间神经切取长度与肩胛上神经翻转长度(2 cm)之和,可超过移位距离(P<0.01),但第6肋间神经总长度仍较移位距离短(P<0.01)。结论第3～5肋间神经可直接移位肩胛上神经重建肩关节外展功能,而第6肋间神经需增加游离切取长度范围或采用神经移植修复。     

Results of nerve transfer techniques for restoration of shoulder and elbow function in the context of a meta-analysis of the English literature

We report the results of 15 patients who underwent nerve transfer for restoration of shoulder and elbow function at our institution for traumatic brachial plexus palsy. We present these results in the context of a meta-analysis of the English literature, designed to quantitatively assess the efficacy of individual nerve transfers for restoration of elbow and shoulder function in a large number of patients. One thousand eighty-eight nerve transfers from 27 studies met the inclusion criteria of the analysis. Seventy-two percent of direct intercostal to musculocutaneous transfers (without interposition nerve grafts) achieved biceps strength > or =M3 versus 47% using interposition grafts. Direct intercostal transfers to the musculocutaneous nerve had a better ability to achieve > or =M4 elbow strength than transfers from the spinal accessory nerve (41% vs 29%). The suprascapular nerve fared significantly better than the axillary nerve in obtaining > or =M3 shoulder abduction (92% vs 69%). At our institution 90% of intercostal to musculocutaneous transfers (n = 10) achieved > or =M3 bicep strength and 70% achieved > or =M4 strength. Four of seven patients achieved > or =M3 shoulder abduction with a single nerve transfer and 6 of 7 regained > or =M3 strength with a dual nerve transfer. This study suggests that interposition nerve grafts should be avoided when possible when performing nerve transfers. Better results for restoration of elbow flexion have been attained with intercostal to musculocutaneous transfers than with spinal accessory nerve transfers and spinal accessory to suprascapular transfers appear to have the best outcomes for return of shoulder abduction. We conclude that nerve transfer is an effective means to restore elbow and shoulder function in brachial plexus paralysis.     

Phrenic nerve neurotization of the musculocutaneous nerve with end-to-side neurorrhaphy: a short report in a rabbit model

This experimental study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of end-to-side coaptation between the musculocutaneous nerve and the phrenic nerve for brachial plexus injuries with nerve-root avulsions. In an experimental rabbit model, neurotization of the musculocutaneous nerve with the phrenic nerve was compared using end-to-end and end-to-side neurorrhaphy. Preliminary results from electrophysiologic and histologic examinations indicate that end-to-side neurotization of the musculocutaneous nerve with the phrenic nerve is an effective means for musculocutaneous nerve repair. The effectiveness of the phrenic nerve is attributed to its large number of motor axons.     

Comparative study of phrenic nerve transfers with and without nerve graft for elbow flexion after global brachial plexus injury

Background

Nerve transfer is a valuable surgical technique in peripheral nerve reconstruction, especially in brachial plexus injuries. Phrenic nerve transfer for elbow flexion was proved to be one of the optimal procedures in the treatment of brachial plexus injuries in the study of Gu et al.

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare phrenic nerve transfers with and without nerve graft for elbow flexion after brachial plexus injury.

Methods

A retrospective review of 33 patients treated with phrenic nerve transfer for elbow flexion in posttraumatic global root avulsion brachial plexus injury was carried out. All the 33 patients were confirmed to have global root avulsion brachial plexus injury by preoperative and intraoperative electromyography (EMG), physical examination and especially by intraoperative exploration. There were two types of phrenic nerve transfers: type1 – the phrenic nerve to anterolateral bundle of anterior division of upper trunk (14 patients); type 2 – the phrenic nerve via nerve graft to anterolateral bundle of musculocutaneous nerve (19 patients). Motor function and EMG evaluation were performed at least 3 years after surgery.

Results

The efficiency of motor function in type 1 was 86%, while it was 84% in type 2. The two groups were not statistically different in terms of Medical Research Council (MRC) grade (p = 1.000) and EMG results (p = 1.000). There were seven patients with more than 4 month's delay of surgery, among whom only three patients regained biceps power to M3 strength or above (43%). A total of 26 patients had reconstruction done within 4 months, among whom 25 patients recovered to M3 strength or above (96%). There was a statistically significant difference of motor function between the delay of surgery within 4 months and more than 4 months (p = 0.008).

Conclusion

Phrenic nerve transfers with and without nerve graft for elbow flexion after brachial plexus injury had no significant difference for biceps reinnervation according to MRC grading and EMG. A delay of the surgery after the 4 months might imply a bad prognosis for the recovery of the function.     

二期多组神经移位治疗臂丛神经根性撕脱伤的临床应用和疗效

目的 分析治疗臂丛神经根性撕脱伤的二期手术方法及其效果。方法 2001年8月～2003年4月8例全臂丛神经根性撕脱伤患者，年龄18～38岁。平均伤后6个月内，均应用以下术式治疗。手术步骤：一期手术，膈神经移位至臂丛上干前股，副神经移位至肩胛上神经；健侧C7神经移位至患侧尺神经；二期手术，第4、5、6、7肋间神经移位至桡神经和胸背神经，健侧C7神经经尺神经移位至正中神经。结果 术后8例均获随访，时间为二期术后l3～25个月，平均21个月。所有患者均有不同程度恢复，相应靶肌肉肌力恢复大于或等于M3为有效恢复，肌皮神经有效恢复6例，恢复率为75．0％；肩胛上神经有效恢复3例，恢复率为37．5％；桡神经有效恢复3例，恢复率为37．5％；胸背神经有效恢复6例，恢复率为75．0％；正中神经有效恢复5例，恢复率为62．5％。感觉恢复情况：正中神经感觉4例为S3，3例为S2，1例为S1。结论 二期多组神经移位安全有效，对部分早期臂丛神经损伤并要求缩短手术次数的患者，是一种可选择的方法。     

Phrenic nerve transfer for brachial plexus motor neurotization

We report a series of 164 patients who underwent phrenic neurotization to elements of the brachial plexus with root avulsion injuries. Recipient nerves included musculocutaneous nerve in 125 patients (78 direct neurotizations and 48 with intervening autograft), median nerve in 10 patients, and a variety of other nerves in 28 patients. Sixty-five patients presented a follow-up period of 2 or more years. Of this group, 55 patients (84.6%) achieved a recovery of M-3 or better. We observed no long-term deleterious effects on respiratory function.     

膈神经端侧吻合移位治疗肌皮神经损伤的实验研究

目的 研究膈神经端侧吻合移位至肌皮神经治疗臂丛神经撕脱伤的可行性.方法 取雄性SD大鼠51只,随机分成4组:A组,单侧全臂丛神经撕脱组;B组,膈神经端端吻合组;C组,膈神经端侧吻合组;D组,膈神经螺旋状端侧吻合组(B、C、D组膈神经均移植2.0 cm腓肠神经至肌皮神经).并于术后进行肢体功能、组织学和神经电生理检测.另取绿色荧光蛋白(green fluorescent protein,GFP)转基因F344大鼠9只,通过荧光显微镜观察膈神经轴突再生情况.方果 各实验组术后手术侧肢体功能逐渐恢复,术后神经电生理和组织学检测表明,术后3个月,C、D组左侧肱二头肌肌张力恢复率和肌湿重恢复率,分别为B组的76.4%和86.3%、85.6%和87.7%,即端侧吻合组肱二头肌功能达到端端吻合组的80%以上,同时保留了膈肌的功能.荧光显微镜观察发现膈神经轴突通过端侧吻合口长入移植神经.方论 膈神经端侧吻合治疗臂丛神经损伤的手术方法是有效、可行的.     

分娩性臂丛神经损伤的早期显微外科治疗

目的 探讨分娩性臂丛神经损伤的手术治疗时机与方法。方法 1997年10月～2001年4月对32例分娩性臂丛神经损伤进行早期显徽手术治疗，术时年龄3个月～2岁，平均10个月，6个月以内19例，大于6个月13例。手术方法：臂丛神经松解12例，臂丛神经瘤切除端端缝合或神经桥接移植7例，膈神经移植于上干前股或肌皮神经7例，肋间神经移植于肌皮神经(经神经移植)6例。神经松解及神经吻合均应用显微器械操作，用7／0或9／0无损伤缝合线缝合。结果 术后30例患儿获随访1-3年5个月，平均1．9年。疗效评定标准：肱二头肌肌力达4级以上为优14例；3级者为良9例12级以下者为差或无效7例。优良率为76．7％，其中年龄小于6个月的19例为84．2％(16／19)；大于6个月的11例为63．6％(7／11)。结论 分娩性臂丛神经损伤患儿，出生后3～6个月无明显屈肘功能恢复者即应行显微手术治疗，神经松解和神经吻合效果优于神经移植术，根据术中探查的具体情况选择恰当的术式是提高疗效的关键。     

Contralateral C7 nerve root transfer to neurotize the upper trunk via a modified prespinal route in repair of brachial plexus avulsion injury

Purpose: In this report, we present our experience on the repair of brachial plexus root avulsion injuries with the use of contralateral C7 nerve root transfers with nerve grafting through a modified prespinal route. Methods: The outcomes of the contralateral C7 nerve root transfer to neurotize the upper trunk and C5/C6 nerve roots of the total or near total brachial plexus nerve root avulsion injury in a series of 41 patients were evaluated. The contralateral C7 nerve root that was dissected to the distal end of the divisions, along with the sural nerve graft, were placed underneath the anterior scalene and longus colli muscles, and then passed through the retro‐esophageal space to neurotize the recipient nerve. The mean length of the dissected contralateral C7 nerve root was 6.5 ± 0.7 cm, and the mean length of sural nerve graft was 6.8 ± 1.9 cm. The suprascapular nerve was neurotized additionally by the phrenic nerve or the terminal motor branch of accessory nerve in some patients. Results: The mean length of the follow‐up was 47.2 ± 14.5 months. The muscle strength was graded M4 or M3 for the biceps muscle in 85.4% of patients, for the deltoid muscle in 82.9% of patients, and for the upper parts of pectoral major in 92.7% of patients. The functional recovery of shoulder abduction in the patients with the additional suprascapular nerve neurotization was remarkably improved. Conclusions: The modified prespinal route could significantly reduced the length of nerve graft in the contralateral C7 nerve root transfer to the injured upper trunk in brachial plexus root avulsion injury, and it may improve the functional outcomes, which deserves further investigations. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery, 2012.     

Musculocutaneous neurotization to restore elbow flexion in brachial plexus paralysis

Brachial plexus injuries may result in devastating paralysis, especially if they involve all the roots. The upper roots are often traumatized, and therefore elbow flexion is usually lost. The prognosis of these injuries is grave if root avulsions are present and the paralysis includes the hand as well. The current management of brachial plexus injuries should be early, aggressive microsurgical reconstruction of the plexus, combining various neurotizations with intraplexus and extraplexus nerve donors. Following this principle, we present the results of musculocutaneous neurotization in our unit, as well as a review of the literature on this subject. Our results are comparable to those reported in the literature, and indicate that the strongest function is achieved after neurotization via intraplexus donors, while some extraplexus donors (i.e., phrenic and accessory nerve) can offer equally strong elbow flexion, especially if they are used in combination. Neurotization of the musculocutaneous nerve should be one of the primary goals in the reconstruction of the injured plexus, since the return of elbow flexion is of paramount importance in daily activity. The restoration of function is ensured if the stronger and healthier motor donors are dedicated to the neurotization of the musculocutaneous nerve. Sometimes in order to match the axonal number of the target to the lower number of axons offered by the donors, two or more donor nerves may be driven to the same target, such as the musculocutaneous nerve.     

Axillary nerve neurotization with the anterior deltopectoral approach in brachial plexus injuries

Combined neurotization of both axillary and suprascapular nerves in shoulder reanimation has been widely accepted in brachial plexus injuries, and the functional outcome is much superior to single nerve transfer. This study describes the surgical anatomy for axillary nerve relative to the available donor nerves and emphasize the salient technical aspects of anterior deltopectoral approach in brachial plexus injuries. Fifteen patients with brachial plexus injury who had axillary nerve neurotizations were evaluated. Five patients had complete avulsion, 9 patients had C5, six patients had brachial plexus injury pattern, and one patient had combined axillary and suprascapular nerve injury. The long head of triceps branch was the donor in C5,6 injuries; nerve to brachialis in combined nerve injury and intercostals for C5‐T1 avulsion injuries. All these donors were identified through the anterior approach, and the nerve transfer was done. The recovery of deltoid was found excellent (M5) in C5,6 brachial plexus injuries with an average of 134.4° abduction at follow up of average 34.6 months. The shoulder recovery was good with 130° abduction in a case of combined axillary and suprascapular nerve injury. The deltoid recovery was good (M3) in C5‐T1 avulsion injuries patients with an average of 64° shoulder abduction at follow up of 35 months. We believe that anterior approach is simple and easy for all axillary nerve transfers in brachial plexus injuries. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery, 2012.     

大鼠改良颈7移位术的电生理研究

目的观察改良颈7移位术修复二组受损神经的电生理变化.方法建立大鼠颈7改良移位术模型（同侧颈7神经根后股,经同侧尺神经作为桥接神经分为两股与肌皮神经和正中神经内侧头缝合）,并与传统单组移位组进行神经电生理测定和比较.结果移位神经的各项电生理指标显示：术后早期（2～6周）,颈7二组神经移位组神经再生劣于同时间段单组移位组.随观察时间的延长,术后8周起,二组神经移位组肌电动作电位潜伏期及最大诱发电位波幅指标逐渐接近单组移位组和正常对照组,至12周上述指标与各组差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.结论大鼠改良颈7移位术电生理变化和传统单组移位术相近,说明颈7具有良好的再生潜力,可同时支配两组受损神经.     

Direct repair (nerve grafting), neurotization, and end-to-side neurorrhaphy in the treatment of brachial plexus injury

OBJECT: The authors present the long-term results of nerve grafting and neurotization procedures in their group of patients with brachial plexus injuries and compare the results of "classic" methods of nerve repair with those of end-to-side neurorrhaphy. METHODS: Between 1994 and 2006, direct repair (nerve grafting), neurotization, and end-to-side neurorrhaphy were performed in 168 patients, 95 of whom were followed up for at least 2 years after surgery. Successful results were achieved in 79% of cases after direct repair and in 56% of cases after end-to-end neurotization. The results of neurotization depended on the type of the donor nerve used. In patients who underwent neurotization of the axillary and the musculocutaneous nerves, the use of intraplexal nerves (motor branches of the brachial plexus) as donors of motor fibers was associated with a significantly higher success rate than the use of extraplexal nerves (81% compared with 49%, respectively, p = 0.003). Because of poor functional results of axillary nerve neurotization using extraplexal nerves (success rate 47.4%), the authors used end-to-side neurorrhaphy in 14 cases of incomplete avulsion. The success rate for end-to-side neurorrhaphy using the axillary nerve as a recipient was 64.3%, similar to that for neurotization using intraplexal nerves (68.4%) and better than that achieved using extraplexal nerves (47.4%, p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: End-to-side neurorrhaphy offers an advantage over classic neurotization in not requiring sacrifice of any of the surrounding nerves or the fascicles of the ulnar nerve. Typical synkinesis of muscle contraction innervated by the recipient nerve with contraction of muscles innervated by the donor was observed in patients after end-to-side neurorrhaphy.