Functional outcome after transfer of brachialis on anterior interosseous and supinator on posterior interosseous nerves: A preliminary report.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) resulting in tetraplegia is a leading cause of morbidity among young adults worldwide and its management remains challenging. Restoring hand function in these patients must be considered a top priority with great impact on their quality of life (QOL); although nerve and tendon transfer have been extensively described, type of procedure to be chosen is not standardized and few studies have determined the functional outcome of those procedure and their impact on QOL is still poorly assessed. We report a preliminary retrospective study regarding feasibility and functional outcomes of nerve transfer procedures including bilateral brachialis nerve on anterior interosseous nerve (AIN) and supinator branch on posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) for hand reanimation following SCI focusing on the impact of these procedures on QOL. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study involving patient sustained SCI and underwent nerve transfer of brachialis branch from musculocutaneous nerve on AIN and supinator branch from the trunk of the radial nerve on the PIN. We included 11 patients (14 limbs) with traumatic SCI resulting in C4 level tetraplegia in five patients, C5 in four and C6 and C7 in one case each, with a median age of 31.5 years underwent surgery at a median of 10 months after injury; including both transfers in 10 cases and AIN reanimation only in one. Functional assessment including medical research council (MCR) grade, graded redefined assessment of strength sensation and prehension (GRASSP) and spinal cord independence measure (SCIM) were performed at least 12 months follow up. RESULTS: Thirteen PIN innervated muscles achieved an MRC score ≥3/5 whereas AIN supplied muscles in 5 out of 15. GRASSP qualitative measure improved from a baseline value of 1 to 2, while quantitative measure passed from 1 to 3 after 12 months; the difference was statistically significant (p = .005 and p = .008, respectively). SCIM self-care sub-score also statistically significant improved from 3 to 4 at 12 months (p = .016). No complication or donor morbidity occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Functional performance has been significantly improved by nerve transfer procedures 1 year after surgery. Nerve transfers may represent a valuable option for the restoration of the hand function in patients with tetraplegia with minor or no morbidity.

On-ward surgical management of wound dehiscence: report of a single neurosurgical center experience and comparison of safety and effectiveness with conventional treatment.

The early identification and optimized treatment of wound dehiscence are a complex issue, with implications on the patient's clinical and psychological postoperative recovery and on healthcare system costs. The most widely accepted treatment is surgical debridement (also called "wash out"), performed in theater under general anesthesia (GA), followed by either wide-spectrum or targeted antibiotic therapy. Although usually effective, in some cases, such a strategy may be insufficient (generally ill, aged, or immunocompromised patients; poor tissue conditions). Moreover, open revision may still fail, requiring further surgery and, therefore, increasing patients' discomfort. Our objective was to compare the effectiveness, costs, and patients' satisfaction of conventional surgical revision with those of bedside wound dehiscence repair. In 8 years' time, we performed wound debridement in 130 patients. Two groups of patients were identified. Group A (66 subjects) underwent conventional revision under GA in theater; group B (64 cases) was treated under local anesthesia in a protected environment on the ward given their absolute refusal to receive further surgery under GA. Several variables-including length and costs of hospital stay, antibiotic treatment modalities, and success and resurgery rates-were compared. Permanent wound healing was observed within 2 weeks in 59 and 55 patients in groups A and B, respectively. Significantly reduced costs, shorter antibiotic courses, and similar success rates and satisfaction levels were observed in group B compared with group A. In our experience, the bedside treatment of wound dehiscence proved to be safe, effective, and well-tolerated.