4.5 Article

Long-Term Outcome of Brachial Plexus Reimplantation After Complete Brachial Plexus Avulsion Injury

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 103, 期 -, 页码 28-36

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.052

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council
  2. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Complete brachial plexus avulsion injury is a severe disabling injury due to traction to the brachial plexus. Brachial plexus reimplantation is an emerging surgical technique for the management of complete brachial plexus avulsion injury. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the functional recovery in 15 patients who underwent brachial plexus reimplantation surgery after complete brachial plexus avulsion injury with clinical examination and electrophysiological testing. METHODS: We included all patients who underwent brachial plexus reimplantation in our institution between 1997 and 2010. Patients were assessed with detailed motor and sensory clinical examination and motor and sensory electrophysiological tests. RESULTS: We found that patients who had reimplantation surgery demonstrated an improvement in Medical Research Council power in the deltoid, pectoralis, and infraspinatous muscles and global Medical Research Council score. Eight patients achieved at least grade 3 MRC power in at least one muscle group of the arm. Improved reinnervation by elec-tromyelography criteria was found in infraspinatous, biceps, and triceps muscles. There was evidence of ongoing innervation in 3 patients. Sensory testing in affected dermatomes also showed better recovery at C5, C6, and T1 dermatomes. The best recovery was seen in the C5 dermatome. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate a definite but limited improvement in motor and sensory recovery after reimplantation surgery in patients with complete brachial plexus injury. We hypothesize that further improvement may be achieved by using regenerative cell technologies at the time of repair.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据