TY - JOUR
T1 - Free Functioning Gracilis Muscle Transfer With and Without Simultaneous Intercostal Nerve Transfer to Musculocutaneous Nerve for Restoration of Elbow Flexion After Traumatic Adult Brachial Pan-Plexus Injury
AU - Maldonado, Andrés A.
AU - Kircher, Michelle F.
AU - Spinner, Robert J.
AU - Bishop, Allen T.
AU - Shin, Alexander Y.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American Society for Surgery of the Hand
PY - 2017/4/1
Y1 - 2017/4/1
N2 - Purpose After complete 5-level root avulsion brachial plexus injury, the free-functioning muscle transfer (FFMT) and the intercostal nerve (ICN) to musculocutaneous nerve (MCN) transfer are 2 potential reconstructive options for restoration of elbow flexion. The aim of this study was to determine if the combination of the gracilis FFMT and the ICN to MCN transfer provides stronger elbow flexion compared with the gracilis FFMT alone. Methods Sixty-five patients who underwent the gracilis FFMT only (32 patients) or the gracilis FFMT in addition to the ICN to MCN transfer (33 patients) for elbow flexion after a pan-plexus injury were included. The 2 groups were compared with respect to postoperative elbow flexion strength according to the modified British Medical Research Council grading system as well as preoperative and postoperative Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores. Two subgroup analyses were performed for the British Medical Research Council elbow flexion strength grade: FFMT neurotization (spinal accessory nerve vs ICN) and the attachment of the distal gracilis tendon (biceps tendon vs flexor digitorum profundus/flexor pollicis longus tendon). Results The proportion of patients reaching the M3/M4 elbow flexion muscle grade were similar in both groups (FFMT vs FFMT + ICN to MCN transfer). Statistically significant improvement in postoperative Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was found in the FFMT + ICN to MCN transfer group but not in the FFMT group. There was a significant difference between gracilis to biceps (M3/M4 = 52.6%) and gracilis to FDP/flexor pollicis longus (M3/M4 = 85.2%) tendon attachment. Conclusions The use of the ICN to MCN transfer associated with the FFMT does not improve the elbow flexion modified British Medical Research Council grade, although better postoperative Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were found in this group. The more distal attachment of the gracilis FFMT tendon may play an important role in elbow flexion strength. Type of study/level of evidence Therapeutic IV.
AB - Purpose After complete 5-level root avulsion brachial plexus injury, the free-functioning muscle transfer (FFMT) and the intercostal nerve (ICN) to musculocutaneous nerve (MCN) transfer are 2 potential reconstructive options for restoration of elbow flexion. The aim of this study was to determine if the combination of the gracilis FFMT and the ICN to MCN transfer provides stronger elbow flexion compared with the gracilis FFMT alone. Methods Sixty-five patients who underwent the gracilis FFMT only (32 patients) or the gracilis FFMT in addition to the ICN to MCN transfer (33 patients) for elbow flexion after a pan-plexus injury were included. The 2 groups were compared with respect to postoperative elbow flexion strength according to the modified British Medical Research Council grading system as well as preoperative and postoperative Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores. Two subgroup analyses were performed for the British Medical Research Council elbow flexion strength grade: FFMT neurotization (spinal accessory nerve vs ICN) and the attachment of the distal gracilis tendon (biceps tendon vs flexor digitorum profundus/flexor pollicis longus tendon). Results The proportion of patients reaching the M3/M4 elbow flexion muscle grade were similar in both groups (FFMT vs FFMT + ICN to MCN transfer). Statistically significant improvement in postoperative Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was found in the FFMT + ICN to MCN transfer group but not in the FFMT group. There was a significant difference between gracilis to biceps (M3/M4 = 52.6%) and gracilis to FDP/flexor pollicis longus (M3/M4 = 85.2%) tendon attachment. Conclusions The use of the ICN to MCN transfer associated with the FFMT does not improve the elbow flexion modified British Medical Research Council grade, although better postoperative Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were found in this group. The more distal attachment of the gracilis FFMT tendon may play an important role in elbow flexion strength. Type of study/level of evidence Therapeutic IV.
KW - Free muscle transfer
KW - elbow flexion reconstruction
KW - gracilis tendon attachment
KW - intercostal nerve transfer
KW - pan-plexus injury
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85013932378&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85013932378&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.01.014
DO - 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.01.014
M3 - Article
C2 - 28249790
AN - SCOPUS:85013932378
SN - 0363-5023
VL - 42
SP - 293.e1-293.e7
JO - Journal of Hand Surgery
JF - Journal of Hand Surgery
IS - 4
ER -