Scholarlink

Background <p>Nerve transfers are a cornerstone in the surgical management of traumatic brachial plexus injuries (BPIs) to restore elbow flexion. Common donor nerves include intraplexal sources like the ulnar and median nerves (fascicular transfers) and extraplexal sources like the intercostal nerves (ICNs). Despite the widespread use of both techniques, the optimal donor nerve remains a subject of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare these techniques for restoring elbow flexion in BPIs.</p> Methods <p>A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify comparative studies. The quality of the studies included was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analyses were performed to compare motor recovery (≥ M3), time to M3 recovery, and complication rates between the two surgical approaches.</p> Results <p>The analysis included 13 studies with a total of 537 patients. In the overall cohort, which included mixed injury patterns, fascicular transfers showed a statistically significant advantage for achieving ≥ M3 recovery (RR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.75, 0.94]). However, when the analysis was restricted to patients with only upper-BPIs, there was no significant difference in achieving ≥ M3 strength between fascicular and ICN transfers (RR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.82, 1.04]). Fascicular transfers resulted in a significantly faster time to ≥ M3 recovery by approximately five months (MD = 5.25, 95% CI [2.87, 7.62]). Donor-site morbidity (18 sensory, 10 motor deficits) and wrist co-flexion were reported in fascicular transfer groups, whereas pneumothorax (4 cases) was the primary complication for ICN transfers.</p> Conclusion <p>In patients with upper-BPIs, fascicular and ICN transfers yield comparable elbow flexion strength. The choice of procedure is a trade-off between the faster recovery offered by fascicular transfers and the better rehabilitation course of ICN transfers.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Nerve transfer to musculocutaneous for elbow flexion restoration in brachial plexus injury (Ulnar and/or Median vs. Intercostal): A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月26日

查看全文
  • Mohamed K. A. Genedy,
  • Esraa Y. Salama,
  • Mohamed Ashraf Elsaadany,
  • Mohamed A. F. AbdelWahab,
  • Ahmed Fathy Amin,
  • Ahmed A. Lashin,
  • Ahmed O. Sabry

摘要

Background

Nerve transfers are a cornerstone in the surgical management of traumatic brachial plexus injuries (BPIs) to restore elbow flexion. Common donor nerves include intraplexal sources like the ulnar and median nerves (fascicular transfers) and extraplexal sources like the intercostal nerves (ICNs). Despite the widespread use of both techniques, the optimal donor nerve remains a subject of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare these techniques for restoring elbow flexion in BPIs.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify comparative studies. The quality of the studies included was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analyses were performed to compare motor recovery (≥ M3), time to M3 recovery, and complication rates between the two surgical approaches.

Results

The analysis included 13 studies with a total of 537 patients. In the overall cohort, which included mixed injury patterns, fascicular transfers showed a statistically significant advantage for achieving ≥ M3 recovery (RR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.75, 0.94]). However, when the analysis was restricted to patients with only upper-BPIs, there was no significant difference in achieving ≥ M3 strength between fascicular and ICN transfers (RR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.82, 1.04]). Fascicular transfers resulted in a significantly faster time to ≥ M3 recovery by approximately five months (MD = 5.25, 95% CI [2.87, 7.62]). Donor-site morbidity (18 sensory, 10 motor deficits) and wrist co-flexion were reported in fascicular transfer groups, whereas pneumothorax (4 cases) was the primary complication for ICN transfers.

Conclusion

In patients with upper-BPIs, fascicular and ICN transfers yield comparable elbow flexion strength. The choice of procedure is a trade-off between the faster recovery offered by fascicular transfers and the better rehabilitation course of ICN transfers.