Clinical Guidelines for Medical Necessity Review Brachial Plexus

Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2013 Jan-Mar; 16(i): 26–33.

Brachial plexus injury in adults: Diagnosis and surgical treatment strategies

Mukund R. Thatte

Section of Plastic Surgery, Bombay Infirmary Institute of Medical Sciences, New Marine Lines, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Sonali Babhulkar

Section of Plastic Surgery, Mumbai Hospital Institute of Medical Sciences, New Marine Lines, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Amita Hiremath

Department of Plastic Surgery, Mumbai Infirmary Establish of Medical Sciences, New Marine Lines, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Bharat

Received 2012 Aug 6; Revised 2012 Aug 25; Accustomed 2012 Sep 18.

Abstruse

Adult mail service traumatic Brachial plexus injury is unfortunately a rather mutual injury in immature adults. In India the most common scenario is of a swain injured in a motorcycle accident. Exact incidence figures are not available but of the injuries presenting to us about ninety% invole the above combination This article reviews peer-reviewed publications including clinical papers, review articles and Meta analysis of the subject field. In addition, the authors′ experience of several hundred cases over the last 15 years has been added and has influenced the ultimate text. Results take been discussed and analysed to get an idea of factors influencing final recovery. It appears that time from injury and number of roots involved are almost crucial.

Keywords: Brachial plexus injury, adult, surgical strategy

Introduction

Brachial plexus injury (BPI) is one of the most devastating injuries from the indicate of view of the patient. It effectively cripples function in one and rarely 2 upper limbs, causing significant loss of function and ability to perform tasks of daily living as well equally delivering in his/her workplace. Potentially this can pb to unemployment, economical hardship, depression and in rare instances fifty-fifty suicidal urges. The typical patient is a immature male who has had an accident while riding a two wheeler where he has been thrown off the vehicle and suffered traction between cervix and shoulder dissentious his plexus to varying degrees.

It is therefore vital that this very valuable segment of our population is functionally restored as early every bit possible to the best of our ability. With modern techniques in hand and microsurgery, this is very much feasible provided the patient is treated in time. There are techniques available for late referrals too, but early on start of treatment makes a huge difference to the eventual outcome.

This article is a review of the diverse issues in diagnosis and management for injuries to the brachial plexus. Information technology is based on an all-encompassing survey of published peer reviewed literature likewise equally insights gained by the author in treating several hundred cases of adult brachial plexus injuries.

History

One of the earliest descriptions of injuries to the brachial plexus can be found in Homer's Iliad,[1] only it was not until this past century that attempts at reconstruction were reported. The first known documentation of obstetric brachial plexus injury was by Smellie in 1764,[2] and Duchenne in 1872[three] surmised that traction was the cause of the palsy. Erb described a similar palsy in adults in 1874[iv] and suggested that traction or compression of the C5 and C6 roots could produce the injury. Thorburn was the starting time to publish an article describing direct repair of the components of the brachial plexus in 1900[5] and the showtime neurotizations were reported in 1903 by Harris and Low.[6] In 1920, Vulpius and Stoffel[vii] rerouted some of the available fascicles of the pectoral fretfulness onto the musculocutaneous and the axillary nerves. In 1947, Seddon published his proposed method of the surgical correction of traction injuries with application of long interpositional nerve grafts.[viii] At the Paris meeting of the International Lodge for Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (SICOT) in 1966, it was concluded that surgical repair of the lesions was virtually impossible and, fifty-fifty when performed, did non guarantee a useful result.[1]

Although cases of brachial plexus injury due to traction had been reported past Flaubert (1827) and Malgaigne (1847) and the traction theory of injury had been advanced by Gerdy and Horsely, Stevens was the get-go to carefully analyze the mechanical vectors created by the anatomy and to estimate the bodily forces involved.[9] In fact Stevens′ treatise is a forgotten classic which accurately shows the bio mechanics of traction in the upper limb and neck and the resultant injuries of the brachial plexus.

The introduction of microsurgical techniques, microsutures and new agreement in nerve repair and regeneration started a renaissance in the surgical repair of brachial plexus injuries led by pioneers like Narakas, Millesi, Allieu, Brunelli, Gu, Terzis, Doi, and others.[10–xviii]

Etiology and pathophysiology

In the majority of cases treated past the author as too elsewhere in the earth, the main etiology remains vehicular accident typically on a two wheeler. A list of common etiologies is given below:

• Vehicular accident (majority two wheelers) accounts for >90% of cases

• Industrial trauma—weight falling on shoulder from a tiptop, existence dragged inside a machine by the arm

• Heavy fall with stretching of neck

• Assault with a sharp object

• Bullet injury—rare in India

• Iatrogenic injury, either deliberate as in tumor surgery involving nerve roots or adventitious while operating in the posterior triangle of the neck.

The pathophysiology of the mutual cause i.e. numbers ane.ii and 3 mainly involves traction on the plexus caused by an abnormal neck shoulder angle while the person is existence thrown from the vehicle afterward the touch. If the shoulder is in adduction at the time then the upper plexus is afflicted involving the C5C6+/-C7, with simultaneous abduction of the shoulder and the stress is directed to the lower plexus i.due east., C8T1 roots. If the transfer of momentum is massive due to the high combined velocity of the 2 vehicles involved, then all roots can be damaged resulting in a flail upper limb. The latter is unfortunately far too mutual. In the author's personal series, it amounts to approx. 50% of cases.

Pathophysiology of pre and mail ganglionic lesions

This is possibly the most of import distinction in the pathology of brachial plexus injury. The nature of the lesion is very important for deciding the treatment. Lesions proximal to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) on the sensory side and at the level of the rootlets from the inductive horn cells (AHC) on the motor side are Pre Ganglionic and those distal to these structures i.east., in the mixed spinal nervus emerging out of the foramina of the cervical spine are mail Ganglionic. Pre Ganglionic lesions essentially signal a permanent loss of that root and the axons within it. Post Ganglionic lesions are amenable to repair from the root stump since they represent axons distal to the cell body which can regenerate.

A pull or a stretch on the plexus results in a spectrum of lesions. Sunderland'due south[nineteen] well-known classification is useful to understand the nature of the injury. Broadly speaking for the surgeon, there are three different kinds of lesions:

• Neuropraxia—reversible quickly in weeks, rarely reaches the surgeon

• Externally intact looking fretfulness (Sunderland type two or 3 injury — axonotomesis) —not to be resected in the neck but distal transfers may be needed if progress is poor

• Neuroma in continuity—represents a post ganglionic lesion (Sunderland Type III and 4 axonotomessis) and requires surgical repair after excision of the neuroma. Rarely is the neuroma conductive, if it is a neurolysis may suffice

• Rupture—Post Ganglionic lesion (neurotomessis sunderland typeV), amenable to intra plexal nerve repair

• Avulsion—Pre Ganglionic lesion, typically that root has to be abandoned every bit a source of regenerating axon.s

Classification as per site

Brachial Plexus injuries can exist classified in various ways:

• Every bit per site

  1. Root

  2. Cord

  3. Trunk

  4. or Nervus level injury

  5. Oft a mixture of all

• Which roots

  1. Upper plexus i.e. C5C6+/-C7 or

  2. Lower plexus C8T1

  3. Global C5C6C7C8T1

• Relation to clavicle

  1. Supra clavicular

  2. Retro clavicular

  3. Infra clavicular.

Patient evaluation

Consists of:

• A detailed history and noting the engagement of injury

• Complete clinical exam

  1. Musculus charting and note muscle wasting

  2. Sensory charting—note dry skin

  3. Noting associated trauma similar fracture clavicle

  4. Checking radial pulse for subclavian avenue injury

  5. Horner's sign

• Detailed electrophysiology report

• Imaging.

Muscle charting

As a elementary thumb rule C5C6 stand for the shoulder and elbow function, mainly of the deltoid and the biceps. If abduction and elbow flexion is missing, then C5C6 tin exist considered. C7 is an interesting root, in that, it is not specific to any item muscle or muscle group and in fact can exist harvested from the contralateral healthy side in case of a total palsy with very modest deficit resulting in the donor limb as shown by Gu et al.[16] and subsequently validated around the earth. Still the addition of C7 to a C5C6 injury results in triceps loss and sometimes in loss of wrist extension (this is variable as C8 too supplies the wrist extensors). Mitt function is mainly represented past C8T1.

Thus if a patient is missing shoulder and elbow function, it is likely to be C5C6+/- C7 lesion depending on triceps function. This is an upper plexus injury. On the other mitt, if patient has adept shoulder and biceps but hand function is missing, then it is a C8T1 lesion or a lower plexus injury. If patient has a flail upper limb so all roots are involved. Table 1 summarizes this description.

Table 1

Summary of root wise motor function

Sensory evaluation

It is important to note loss of sensation and often what patient perceives every bit altered sensation. Nevertheless on rigorous sensory testing these areas too are oft anesthetic. Dry skin is a give away for affected dermatomes due to loss of sudomotor function. Table 2 summarizes some piece of cake rules of the pollex.

Tabular array 2

Summary of sensory innervation

Other clinical findings

Information technology is of import to note the presence of whatever associated trauma as it has a begetting on patients′ power to get operated early. In case of fracture clavicle it is likely to result in a post ganglionic injury and too may be associated with a subclavian artery injury which will impact future gratuitous functional muscle transfers (FFMT) especially in a flail upper limb equally the donor vessels may be compromised or limited. Multiple limb fractures and head injury will touch on the outcome only if they delay plexus surgery beyond 3 to 6 months. In case of humerus fractures, the clinician should be alerted about the existence of an additional radial nervus injury which is and then difficult to diagnose.

Horner's sign indicates a very proximal (ordinarily Pre Ganglionic) blazon of lesion and signals the demand for aggressive early on management of the plexus injury with multi staged reconstruction including FFMT amongst other things.

Electrophysiology/Electro diagnostics (Edx)

In the authors′ opinion, this is perchance the unmarried most of import investigation for a plexus injury and far more than valuable to make surgical and therapeutic decisions than whatsoever imaging technique. This of grade pre supposes the beingness of an excellent electro diagnostic department in your centre which unfortunately is not always the case. The following things can be determined by Edx:

• Type of lesion, i.eastward., pre or post ganglionic

• Localization of lesion to roots trunks cords and nerves

• Extent of the lesion

• Status of individual muscles—denervated, reinnervating etc

• Sequential Edx can point to recovery and assistance post op monitoring of results

• Compound motor action potential (CMAP) of important nerves like the ulnar and median which are potential donor nerves in upper plexus injuries.

Imaging

Imaging gives valuable information nigh the lesion every bit too about the associated injuries. Some modalities are listed below and this can be a subject of a review commodity in itself.

• Plain X-rays for fractures and raised diaphragm (phrenic nerve injury)

• CT myelography to determine the root status—not really washed now but was the gold standard a few years ago

• MR neurography—currently the virtually valuable tool for visualizing the plexus.

There are several papers discussing these modalities.[20–30] At 1 time CT myelography was the gilt standard to determine on root avulsion in cases of adult palsy. Currently MRI is considered very useful, at to the lowest degree in the adults. Although in that location are reports of the use of MR scans the author does not routinely perform MR scans every time he sees a patient, although patients often already take one when seen by a hand and plastic surgeon. Clinical exam and electro physiology can give very adequate evidence of the status of the plexus and the indication for surgery.

Surgery for brachial plexus injury

Surgery especially for obstetric plexus injuries was pioneered by Kennedy 1903,[31] Sever 1916[32] and Wyeth and Sharpe in 1917.[33] Kennedy in fact reported very encouraging results. Notwithstanding Sever'south results and paper describing grand cases were a damper for future work for almost 50 years. Herbert Seddon revived involvement in the field afterward world war II.[34] It was only after that Gilbert,[35] Narakas,[36] Kawabata[37] and Millesi[38] and others started the surgical handling for both children and adults again in the 80's with remarkably impressive results.

Indications for surgery and timing

Whatever brachial plexus injury which has non shown substantial spontaneous recovery in 3 months deserves to be explored. Timing is crucial due to the eventual loss of neuro muscular end plates at xx to 24 months later on denervation.[39] If in that location is global palsy with MRI proven pseudomeningocoeles showing pre ganglionic avulsion type of injury then no filibuster is justified. Functioning tin exist performed in days or weeks to get the maximum out of any possible nerve transfers. In partial injuries especially of the upper plexus, a maximum menstruation of 3 months is worthwhile to look for improved CMAP'southward of donor fretfulness and resolve the neuropraxia function in performance roots. The best window is in the showtime 3 months and the adjacent in the subsequent three months. After that results of proximal nerve repairs are less than satisfactory, although distal nerve transfers and free functional muscle transfers are possible. Indian information from the Post Graduate thesis of two of my students[40,41] clearly demonstrate that the starting time three months are the all-time flow followed past 3 to 6 months after injury. Historic period besides impacts results. Young patients at or effectually twenty years show rapid recovery with higher gain of forcefulness. People over 40 are thought to show reduced results; yet, they nevertheless show adequately skilful results to justify surgery at any age unless medical factors make the person unfit for reconstruction. Bhatia AG[42] has shown documented consistent practiced results of nerve reconstruction in people over 50 in a sample size of 38 cases. Age range was 45-59 and median age l. Pre-op filibuster was few days to 12 months. The results showed a similar percentage of greater than M3 ability every bit in younger people.

Surgical Exposure

Typically the exposure is both in a higher place and below the clavicle to get at the unabridged plexus and its nerve [Figure ane]. A detailed paper[43] is available discussing the approach and its technical details. In obstetric plexus cases, it is oftentimes necessary to ostetomize the clavicle to become a good exposure;[43] however, in adult cases except for the truly retro clavicular injury we do non ever osteotomize the clavicle.

Marking for typical exposure of supra and infra clavicular plexus

Handling Strategy

Broadly surgery for these is divided in two broad categories:

• Surgery for nerve repair

• Secondary procedures

Whenever feasible depending on timing, surgery for nervus repair takes precedence over all other procedures since time is of the essence. As soon every bit other injuries are dealt with primarily the patient should have the earliest possible nerve repair.

Secondary procedures are done after nerve repairs or in very late cases as a substitute to restore function. Either fashion all patients tin can be offered some treatment at all stages.

Surgery of the fretfulness

Broadly divided into:

• Intra plexal repair

• Extra plexal repair

• Distal nerve transfers

• Contralateral C7 transfer.

Quite often a combination of these may be offered.

Intra plexal repair: In cases of post ganglionic injury where donor roots are bachelor, the root stumps are joined to distal targets which may be trunks, cords or private nerves with the help of autologous nervus grafts. These may exist free grafts or vascularized grafts. In full general short grafts practise better than long grafts; however, such a pick is not always available.

Extra plexal repair: Fretfulness not arising from the plexus are used equally donor nerves. Archetype example every bit existence, intercostal nerves (ICN) to musculo cutaneous nerve (MCN) for biceps and spinal accessory nerve (SAN) to supra scapular nervus (SSN) for rotator cuff reinnervation. Some authors use phrenic nerve.[44,45] Though they claim that almost all parameters gradually recover to preoperative status levels inside 1 year; the loss of diaphragm role deters many others from using it. Bhandari et al.[46] have shown that though the phrenic transfer does produce the desired motor event, the long term follow up of the patients showed a persistent pulmonary function deficit fifty-fifty at the end of several years in very fit immature adults. Their data and conclusions are reproduced below. Their series is of on sixteen patients with brachial palsy (15 full and 1 partial, where information technology was used for axillary nerve). The observations have been as under

• None of the patient manifested respiratory problems after unilateral phrenic nerve transfer

• Three patients with weak or nonfunctional spinal accessory nervus underwent simultaneous unilateral transfer of phrenic nerve to the suprascapular nerve and iii intercostal nerves to the musculocutaneous nerve. These patients as well remained symptom complimentary in the post operative flow

• Pulmonary function tests in postoperative menses exhibited a significant reduction in vital capacity, full lung capacity, forced vital capacity, and forced expiratory book in 1 s

• These patients were followed up for a period of 28 to 36 months. All remained asymptomatic on running short distances (500 meter), but became more breathless on long runs when compared with control group (healthy individuals of identical age group without brachial plexus palsy)

• Pulmonary functions remained suboptimal even iii years after the surgery

• The diaphragm remained raised in all patients, though the range of elevation was not universal.

Based on these observations, in his opinion, phrenic nerve is not an expendable nervus. During young historic period, a bulk of them may remain asymptomatic. However with advancing historic period and in high demand situations (pulmonary infections), they volition be more decumbent to develop respiratory complications.

Distal Nerve Transfers

The work of Oberlin, Somsak, McKinnon[47–51] and others have opened exciting new options on treating BPI. Substantially the concept is to use the fascicles or branches of a operation distal nerve to re innervate a denervated musculus or group of muscles. The donor nerve typically suffers very lilliputian functional deficit just the recepient muscle being nearby (compared to intra plexal neurotization in cervix) gets chop-chop innervated and functional. Typically this is a dream win–win situation, some examples:

• Ulnar nervus fascicle to MCN for biceps office[47]

• Branch to long head of triceps to posterior segmentation of axillary nerve for deltoid[48]

• Co-operative of MCN to brachialis muscle given to median nerve for finger flexion.[fifty]

Contralateral C7 root transfer.

Pioneered past Gu et al.[16] from Shanghai. This is a epitome changing process where either the full or half contralateral C7 root from the normal side is harvested and connected to the target nerves on the affected side. In situations where there is global avulsion on the affected side this is a vital new technique which offers promise. Gu et al. have even used it to regain hand role despite the long distance involved simply other authors including this author take not been able to replicate that except in obstetric cases or in very young adults. For older adults we prefer to use the contralateral C7 to get either the lateral string or the posterior cord innervated for more proximal muscle function and the results are reliable.

Strategies for reconstruction

Strategies for adults and children (Nascency Brachial Plexus Injury BBPI) differ considerably. The author has discussed the BBPI strategies elsewhere in detail.[52] Children have a far greater regeneration capacity and altitude to travel for the regenerating axons is far smaller. Thus potentially total reconstruction up to and including the mitt intrinsic muscles is viable even in an all 5 root injury if operated in fourth dimension. This is rarely feasible in an adult total palsy.

For all injuries nosotros volition discuss strategies for intra plexal repair and other nerve transfers simultaneously. The surgeon's judgement will depend upon his/her experience, expertise, training and the peculiar circumstances of each patient.

Strategy for C5C6 injury

In a post ganglionic injury treated early in a young patient:

• C5 to lateral string/upper trunk

• C6 to posterior cord

• with XIth to SSN transfer.

Secondary procedures

In a pre ganglionic Injury or Older Patient or belatedly repair:

• Ulnar+/- Median fascicle to MCN for Biceps and Brachialis[47] (Oberlin)

• Nerve to Long Caput of Triceps to Inductive division of Axillar Nerve for Deltoid[48] (Somsak)

• XIth Nervus to SSN for Supra Infra Spinatus.

Currently the Oberlin and Somsak transfers are gaining popularity even in post ganglionic injuries amongst many surgeons due to the much higher chances of success particularly in older patients and delayed repairs.

If C7 loss is added to the upper plexus injury

For post ganglionic injuries it will remain similar to C5C6 injury in cases of early surgery on a young patient. Except that, C7 stump will be attached to heart body/posterior cord. For cases with pre ganglionic injury or older patient or late repair the strategy is:

• Ulnar to MCN

• XIth to SSN

• ICN'southward to Axillary[49] (Somsak)

• Median to Triceps (long head branch).

Cases of C5C6C7 injury where the C8T1 too are non strong and CMAP on the Ulnar/Median is not good.

In that case ICN's are reserved for MCN to become a potent elbow flexion.

Figures ​ ii and ​ three bear witness some results. Videos of results are bachelor in the online version.

Elbow flexion restored using Oberlin'due south Technique (a) Ulnar nerve fascicle coapted to musculocutaneous nervus (b) Event showing elbow flexion restored using Oberlin'south Technique (b) Clinical result

Restoration of shoulder abduction using Somsak's technique

C8T1 or lower plexus injury

In a truly lower plexus injury the ipsilateral or contralateral C7 can be used to innervate the Lower trunk/Medial cord. If patient is young and operated early. In late cases or if C7 is not available and so distal nervus transfers are possible:

• Nerve to Brachialis to Median or Ulnar[53,54]

• Nervus to Brachioradialis or Supinator to PIN.[55,56]

Effigy 4 shows a effect of authors′ case of Nerve to Brachialis transfer to Median Nerve in a late presentation of a lower plexus injury.

(a) Nerve to Brachialis isolated to co apt to the median nervus (b) Nerve to brachialis cut (c) Restoration of finger flexion following the repair

Strategy for flail upper limb C5-T1 injury

In a post ganglionic injury and on an early on referral, total intraplexal reconstruction is possible from roots to trunks and/or cords. Figure 5 shows results in such a case.

Various functions restored following intraplexal repair in a total palsy

The commoner injury is a pre ganglionic total avulsion. In these cases a multi staged strategy is employed by the author. Doi et al.[57] have shown interesting results with double Gracilis functional musculus transfers. The author uses a different strategy as follows:

Stage I: Explore Plexus, and neurotise what is feasible,

• XI thursday to SSN

• Contralateral C7 to lateral or Posterior string to get either biceps plus Pectoralis Major (if Lateral Cord is the target of the C7) or to become Deltoid, Triceps and ECRL for Wrist extension (If Posterior string is the target).

Stage II (3 months following stage I): Free Functional Gracilis transfer using thoracodorsal vessels and ICN's equally the motors routed volarly beyond the elbow and sutured to the Flexor Digitorum Profundus and Flexor Pollicis Longus (FDP'southward and FPL). Simultaneously utilize one ICN for triceps if C7 is on lateral cord.

Stage Iii (i twelvemonth later on stage Ii): Wrist fusion if no ECRL recovery.

Stage 4: Tendon transfers to improve hand part for grasping, shoulder fusion if shoulder is unstable.

Upto 50% functional recovery is possible with restoration of activities of daily living, power to drive, go shopping and lifting up to 5 Kg, if all goes as per plan. Using computer mouse is as well possible. Fine function similar buttoning a shirt, writing, typing etc., is not restored. Figures six shows a result of secondary procedures:

Functional restoration subsequently reconstruction of flail upper limb (a) Elbow flexion (b) Functional restoration afterward reconstruction of flail upper limb (b) Fingers flexing against resistance using Gracilis (c) Functional restoration after reconstruction of flail upper limb (c) Finger flexion subsequently Opp C7 transfer to median

These are done in late cases when nothing else is viable

• Tendon transfers using available muscles

• Trapezius transfer to stabilise shoulder

• Shoulder and wrist arthrodesis to improve posture

• Free Functional muscle transfer—can always be attempted equally the donor musculus is uninjured and has never been denervated.

Discussion and Results

Results vary depending on multiple parameters:

• Age of patient-younger patients get better results

• Time between injury and surgery-earlier the ameliorate-first 3 months is the best period

• Extent of injury-fractional plexus injuries have superior results, peculiarly upper plexus injuries

• Rehab facility-people on good rehab programmes bear witness greater functionality and weight tolerance.

Babhulkar and Thatte[41] analyzed a pocket-sized subset of the information in Bombay Hospital over a 4 year flow where at least 2 years (approx.) follow up was available. This was a prospective study of developed patients with either total or fractional traumatic brachial plexopathy between August 2005 and May 2009 studied at Mumbai Hospital Institute of Medical Sciences, Mumbai. The aim was to evaluate the event of surgical management of brachial plexus injury patients with a follow upwards of minimum two years along with social and emotional impact over patients of brachial plexus injury.

Patients were treated with a combination of neurolysis (79 patients), neurotization (84 patients) or nervus grafting (29 patients) according to intra-operative findings. The youngest patient was of xviii years with hateful of 27.iv years. The near common fashion of injury was motor bike accidents (86%). The mean time interval between injury and surgery was 5.13 months. The boilerplate post operative follow up was 22.8 months. Patients subsequently may have got free functional muscle transfers in astringent cases simply this was not factored into the assessment. Pure nerve repair results are analysed.

Summary of findings:

• When the delay for operation was more than than 6 months, information technology affected the outcome significantly.

• Patients with upper trunk injury showed maximum number of good results (lxx%) while those with global plexopathy showed practiced outcome in only 20%, fair in 36% and poor in 44%.

• In global plexopathy, those having preganglionic injury had the worst effect in the group. Outcome was inversely proportional to number of avulsed roots.

• Pre-ganglionic injuries showed significantly poorer outcome than mail-ganglionic injuries

• Result with main coaptation without nervus graft had significantly ameliorate result than the patients where the nerve graft was used.

All the factors studied in our series (filibuster in operation, number of avulsed roots, type and level of injury and utilize of nerve graft) except historic period of the patient afflicted the effect on univariate analysis. On multimodal regression analysis, filibuster in operation (P value 0.049) and number of avulsed roots (P value 0.003) significantly affect the event of surgery, whereas age of the patient (P value 0.252), type of injury (P value 0.664), level of injury (P value 0.192) and use of nervus graft (P value 0.487) fail to show whatever significant clan with the outcome of surgery.

Nosotros conclude that these complex injuries require tailored arroyo for improved prognosis. Multiple factors impart important influence on the outcome of brachial plexus surgery, simply factors like delay in operation and number of avulsed roots significantly affected the outcome of surgery in our series.

FFMT using Gracilis has added a very valuable tool to enhance results in cases of flail upper limb. In the past these patients had no promise of really getting a usable upper limb post-obit pure nerve repair. This has changed drastically with the use of Gracilis FFMT. It is therefore of import to offer this selection to the global avulsion patients correct at the outset and outline a comprehensive program of sequential surgery and rehab to avoid depression.

Though social and emotional assessment was non done using any standardized index, it showed that poor effect was associated with dissatisfaction, depression and impact on the career.

Contempo advances

The master frustration of brachial plexus surgeons is the patient with avulsed roots—no usable proximal donor axons. Some groups[58–65] are now trying to reimplant the avulsed roots into the spinal cord with the hope of reconnecting with the tracts coming from and going to the CNS. They accept had partial success but they seem to piece of work (that too partially) only if washed very early, like in the kickoff few weeks afterward injury. This is a big limitation equally patients are often seen quite late by the hand surgeon/plastic surgeon who is regularly treating plexus injuries.

Workers in basic biology are reporting something more fascinating in not mammalian animals; two groups working on the sea cucumber (an echinoderm)[66] and the Zebra fish[67] have shown amazing regeneration of the nervous organisation. The main jail cell responsible is the equivalent of the mammalian radial glial jail cell which manages to help the organism in regeneration and bridging the gap. In mammals as well the glia come up in at the site of an injury but currently appear to remain static there and in fact hinder regeneration to some extent. The key will lie in up regulation of genes similar her-4.i responsible for making it bear differently and cause regeneration of neurons.

Conclusions

• All patients with brachial plexus injury demand early referral to a person specializing in treating it

• Patients get better results with earlier referral

• All patients can be offered some modality of handling irrespective of time of referral

• No patient must be abandoned without offering treatment and rehabilitation.

Footnotes

Source of Back up: Nil

Conflict of Interest: None declared

References

i. Robotti E, Longhi P, Verna K, Bocchiotti G. Brachial plexus surgery: An historical perspective. Hand Clin. 1995;4:517–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

ii. Smellie W. Vol. three. London: Wilson and Durham; 1764. Collection of Preternatural Cases and Observations in Midwifery. [Google Scholar]

3. Duchenne GB. 3rd ed. Paris: Bailliere; 1872. De fifty′Electrisation Localisee et de son Application a la Pathologie et a la Therapeutique. [Google Scholar]

four. Erb WH. Ueber eine eigenthumliche localisation von lahmungen in plexus brachialis. Verh Dtsch Natur Med. 1874;2:130. [Google Scholar]

5. Thorburn Due west. A Clinical Lecture on Secondary Suture of the Brachial Plexus. Br Med J. 1900;one:1073–five. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Harris W, Low VW. On the importance of accurate muscular assay in lesions of the brachial plexus and the treatment of Erb's palsy and infantile paralysis of the upper extremity by cross-marriage of nerve roots. Br Med J. 1903;2:1035. [Google Scholar]

seven. Vulpius O, Stoffel A. second ed. Stuttgart: Enke; 1920. Orthopadische Operationslehre. [Google Scholar]

8. Seddon HJ. The apply of autogenous grafts for the repair of big gaps in peripheral fretfulness. Br J Surg. 1947;35:151–67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Stevens JH. Brachial plexus paralysis. In: Codman EA, editor. The shoulder. Boston: Privately Published; 1934. pp. 344–50. [Google Scholar]

x. Narakas A. Surgical treatment of traction injuries of the brachial plexus. Clin Orthop. 1978;133:71–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Narakas A. Brachial plexus surgery. Orthop Clin N Am. 1981;12:303–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Millesi H. Surgical management of brachial plexus injuries. J Hand Surg. 1977;2:367–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Allieu Y, Privat JM, Bonnel F. Paralysis in root avulsion of the brachial plexus neurotization by the spinal accessory nervus. Clin Plast Surg. 1984;eleven:133–six. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Brunelli G, Brunelli F. Use of anterior nerves of cervical plexus to partially neurotize the avulsed brachial plexus. In: Brunelli G, editor. Textbook of Microsurgery. Milano: Masson; 1988. pp. 803–7. [Google Scholar]

15. Gu YD, Wu MM, Zhen YL, Zhao JA, Zhang GM, Chen DS, et al. Phrenic nerve transfer for brachial plexus motor neurotization. Microsurgery. 1989;10:287–ix. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Gu YD, Zhang GM, Chen DS, Yan JG, Cheng XM, Chen Fifty. 7th cervical nervus root transfer from the contralateral healthy side for treatment of brachial plexus root avulsion. J Hand Surg. 1992;17:518–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Terzis JK, Papakonstantinou KC. The surgical handling of brachial plexus injuries in adults. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106:1097–122. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Doi One thousand, Muramatsu K, Hattori Y, Otsuka K, Tan SH, Nanda V, et al. Restoration of prehension with the double free musculus technique following complete avulsion of the brachial plexus: Indications and long-term results. J. Os Joint Surg. 2000;82:652–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Sunderland S. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1978. Nerves and Nerve Injuries. [Google Scholar]

twenty. Nagano A, Ochiai North, Sugioka H, Hara T, Tsuyama N. Usefulness of myelography in brachial plexus injuries. J Paw Surg. 1989;14:59–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Petras AF, Sobel DF, Mani JR, Lucas PR. CT myelography in cervical nerve root avulsion. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1985;nine:275–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Piatt JH, Jr, Hudson AR, Hoffman HJ. Preliminary experiences with brachial plexus exploration in children: Nascence injury and vehicular trauma. Neurosurgery. 1988;22:715–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Popovich MJ, Taylor FC, Helmer East. MR imaging of birth-related brachial plexus avulsion. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1989;10:S98. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Sherrier RH, Sostman Hard disk drive. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brachial plexus. J Thorac Imag. 1993;8:27–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Urabe F, Matsuishi T, Kojima G, Abe T, Utsunomiya H, Okudera T. MR imaging of birth brachial palsy in a two-month-sometime infant. Brain Dev. 1991;thirteen:130–1. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Vielvoye GJ, Hoffmann CF. Neuroradiological investigations in cervical root avulsion. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 1993;95:S36–viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Wehrli FW. Fast-scan magnetic resonance: Principles and applications. Magn Reson Q. 1990;6:165–236. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Gupta RK, Mehta VS, Banerji AK, Jain RK. MR evaluation of brachial plexus injuries. Neuroradiology. 1989;31:377–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Doi K, Otsuka Thousand, Okamoto Y, Fujii H, Hattori Y, Baliarsing Equally. Cervical nervus root avulsion in brachial plexus injuries: Magnetic resonance imaging classification and comparison with myelography and computerized tomography myelography. J Neurosurg. 2002;96:277–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

xxx. Amrami KK, Port JD. Imaging the brachial plexus. Hand Clin. 2005;21:25–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Yeoman PM, Seddon HJ. Brachial plexus injuries: Handling of the flail arm. J Bone Joint Surg. 1961;43:493. [Google Scholar]

32. Kennedy R. Suture of the brachial plexus in nascency paralysis of the upper extremity. Br Med J. 1903;1:298–301. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Sever JW. Obstetric paralysis: Its etiology, clinical aspects and handling, with a report of four hundred and seventy cases. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1916;12:541–7. [Google Scholar]

34. Wyeth JA, Sharpe W. The field of neurological surgery in a full general infirmary. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1917;24:29–36. [Google Scholar]

35. Gilbert A, Tassin JL. Reparation chirurgicale du plexus brachial dans la paralysie bstetricale. Chirurgie. 1984;110:70–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Narakas AO. Obstetrical brachial plexus injuries. In: Lamb DW, editor. The Paralysed Mitt. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1987. pp. 116–35. [Google Scholar]

37. Kawabata H, Masada One thousand, Tsuyuguchi Y. Early microsurgical reconstruction in nascence palsy. Clin Orthop. 1987;215:233–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Millessi H. Brachial plexus injuries: Nerve grafting. Clin Orthop. 1988;237:43–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Ferrante MA. Electrodiagnostic Assessment of the Brachial Plexus. Neurol Clin. 2012;30:551–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Bhandari R. (Guided by and using data of Thatte MR) Thesis submitted to the University of Bombay for MS Orth. 2004 [Google Scholar]

41. Babhulkar South. (Guided past and using data of Thatte MR) Thesis submitted to the National Board for DNB Plastic. 2010 [Google Scholar]

42. Bhatia AG. How old is "Likewise Onetime" for nerve reconstruction? Presentation at the meeting of the European Federation of Societies for Microsurgery held at Genova in Italian republic in May. 2010 [Google Scholar]

43. Thatte MR, Agashe 1000, Rathod C, Lad P, Mehta R. An arroyo to the supraclavicular and infraclavicular aspects of the brachial plexus. Tech Manus Up Extrem Surg. 2011;15:188–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Gu Y, Meng 1000. Use of the Phrenic Nerve for Brachial Plexus Reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;323:119–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Xu WD, Gu YD, Lu JB, Yu C, Zhang CG, Xu JG. Pulmonary role after complete unilateral phrenic nerve transection. J Neurosurg. 2005;103:464–seven. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Bhandari PS. Paper presented at APSICON 2010, Annual Conference of Associayion of Plastic Surgeons of Undia in Goa Republic of india. [Google Scholar]

47. Oberlin C, Beal D, Leechavengvongs S, Salon A, Dauge MC, Sarcy JJ. Nervus transfer to biceps muscle using a part of ulnar nervus for C5/C6 avulsion of the brachial plexus. Anatomical report and report of cases. J Paw Surg. 1994;nineteen:232–seven. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Leechavengvongs S, Witoonchart Thousand, Uerpairojkit C, Thuvasethakul P. Nervus transfer to deltoid muscle using the nerve to the long head of the triceps, part Two: A report of 7 cases. J Mitt Surg Am. 2003;28:633–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Malungpaishrope K, Leechavengvongs Southward, Uerpairojkit C, Witoonchart Thousand, Jitprapaikulsarn Due south, Chongthammakun Southward. Nerve transfer to deltoid musculus using the intercostal nerves through the posterior arroyo: An anatomic written report and ii case reports. J Hand Surg Am. 2007;32:218–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Colbert SH, Mackinnon SE. Nerve transfers for brachial plexus reconstruction. Mitt Clin. 2008;24:341–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Mackinnon SE, Dellon AL. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers; 1988. Surgery of the Peripheral Nerve. [Google Scholar]

53. Gu Y, Wang H, Zhang 50, Zhang G, Zhao Ten, Chen 50. Transfer of brachialis branch of musculocutaneous nervus for finger flexion: Anatomic study and case report. Microsurgery. 2004;24:358–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Zhao 10, Lao J, Hung LK, Zhang GM, Zhang LY, Gu YD. Selective neurotization of the median nervus in the arm to care for brachial plexus palsy. An anatomic report and case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:736–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Dong Z, Gu YD, Zhang CG, Zhang L. Clinical use of supinator motor branch transfer to the posterior interosseous nerve in C7-T1 brachial plexus palsies. J Neurosurg. 2010;113:113–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Bertelli JA, Ghizoni MF, Tacca CP. Transfer of the supinator muscle to the extensor pollicis brevis for thumb extension reconstruction in C7-T1 brachial plexus palsy. J Manus Surg Eur. 2010;35:29–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Doi K, Sakai Grand, Kuwata N, Ihara K, Kawai Southward. Double-muscle technique for reconstruction of prehension after complete avulsion of brachial plexus. J Mitt Surg. 1995;20:408–fourteen. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

58. Carlstedt T, Grane P, Hallin RG, Noren M. Render of function after spinal cord implantation of avulsed spinal nerve roots. Lancet. 1995;346:1323–five. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

59. Carlstedt TP, Anand P, Hallin R, Misra PV, Noren G, Seferlis T. spinal nervus root repair and reimplantation of avuled ventral roots into the spinal string after brachial plexus injury. J Neurosurg. 2000;93:237–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

60. Bertelli JA, Mira JC. Brachial plexus repair past peripheral nerve grafts straight into the spinal cords in rats. Behavioral and anatomical prove of functional recovery. J Neurosurg. 1994;81:107–xiv. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

61. Bertelli JA, Orsal D, Mira JC. Median nerve neurotization past peripheral nerve grafts directly implanted into the spinal cord: Anatomical, behavioural and electrophysiological prove of sensorimotor recovery. Encephalon Res. 1994;644:150–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. Bertelli JA, Taleb 1000, Mira JC, Calixto JB, Kassar Fifty. Brachial plexus repair by peripheral nerve grafts directly implanted into the contralateral spinal cord. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 1997;11:189–94. [Google Scholar]

63. Bertelli JA, Taleb M, Mira JC, Kassar L. Selective restoration of sensation by PNG directly implanted into contralateral C7 DRG. An experimental study in the rat brachial plexus. Neurosurgery. 1998;42:125–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

64. Bertelli JA, Ghizoni MF. Brachial plexus avulsion injury repairs with nerve transfers and nerve grafts directly implanted into the spinal string yield partial recovery of shoulder and elbow movements. Neurosurgery. 2003;52:1385–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

65. Fournier Hard disk, Mercier P, Menei P. Repair of Avulsed Ventral Nervus Roots by Direct Ventral Intraspinal Implantation afterward Brachial Plexus Injury. Hand Clin. 2005;21:109–18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

66. Mashanov VS, Zueva OR, Heinzeller T. Regeneration of the radial nervus string in a holothurian: A promising new model system for studying mail-traumatic recovery in the developed nervous system. Tissue Cell. 2008;40:351–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

67. Kroehne Five, Freudenreich D, Hans Southward, Kaslin J, Brand Grand. Regeneration of the adult zebrafish encephalon from neurogenic radial glia-type progenitors. Development. 2011;138:4831–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

makutzwhensinal.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3644778/

Share :