Analysis of Results of Contralateral Hemi-C7 Root Used for Restoring Hand Function in Global Birth Brachial Plexus Palsy.

PURPOSE: To analyze the outcome of the use of contralateral hemi-C7 for the restoration of hand function in patients with birth brachial plexus global palsy. METHODS: From 2004 to 2017, 19 infants with Narakas types III and IV birth brachial plexus palsy underwent transfer of contralateral hemi-C7 (posterior division of the contralateral C7 root) to the lower trunk or medial cord on the affected side. All the patients were evaluated for shoulder function using the Gilbert and Mallet scores, elbow flexion using the modified Medical Research Council score for children, and hand function using the Raimondi score. After the surgery, the children were followed-up at 3-month intervals for the first year and 6-month intervals thereafter. Hand function achieving Raimondi scores of 3-5 was considered a useful outcome. RESULTS: The patients were followed-up for a mean duration of 88 months, with a minimum of 35 and a maximum of 192 months of follow-up. All patients attained a Gilbert score of ≥3, whereas 9 patients attained a score of ≥4. Similarly, all patients attained a minimum aggregate Mallet score of 15, and 9 patients attained a score of ≥20. All patients attained a modified Medical Research Council score of ≥3, used for assessing elbow flexion. Useful hand function was attained in 73% (14/19) of the cases (a Raimondi score of ≥3). There was no clinically recorded deficit on the donor side. CONCLUSIONS: Contralateral hemi-C7 transfer in infants with brachial plexus root avulsions helped regain useful hand function in 73% (14/19) of the children treated. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Correlation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Neurography) and Electrodiagnostic Study Findings with Intraoperative Findings in Post Traumatic Brachial Plexus Palsy.

Background The majority of brachial plexus injuries (BPIs) are caused by trauma; most commonly due to two-wheeler road accidents. It is important to determine whether the lesion in question is pre-ganglionic or post-ganglionic for purposes of surgical planning and prognosis. Diagnostic testing helps the surgeon to not only decide whether surgical intervention is required, but also in planning the procedure, thereby maximizing the patient's chances of early return to function. The aim of the study was to determine the diagnostic efficacy of electrodiagnostic studies (Edx) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) individually, and in unison, in detecting the type and site of BPI by comparison with intraoperative findings (which were used as the reference standard) in patients with posttraumatic BPI. Methods It is an observational cross-sectional prospective randomized study, wherein 48 patients with BPI underwent a detailed clinical and neurological examination of the upper limb, Edx, MRI neurography and were subsequently operated upon. We assessed a total of 240 roots. The diagnosis of all spinal roots was noted on Edx. MRI was performed to look for root avulsion, pseudomeningocoele, and/or rupture injury. The patients were subsequently operated upon. All roots were traced from infraclavicular level right up to the foramen to ensure continuity of root or note rupture/ avulsion. The findings were tabulated. Results MRI accurately diagnosed 138 of the 147 injured roots and MRI sensitivity for the detection of BPI was 93.88%, whereas Edx correctly identified 146 out of 147 injured roots and thus, had sensitivity of 99.32%; however, both lacked specificity (18.28 and 20.43%, respectively). With Edx and MRI in unison, sensitivity was 100% which meant that if a given patient with a BPI is subjected to both tests, not a single abnormal root will go unnoticed. Conclusion Edx and MRI are two highly sensitive investigation modalities whose combined sensitivity is 100% for the detection of a root injury. Therefore, we recommend both tests as they are excellent screening tests.

Peripheral Nerve Injury to the Lower Limb: Repair and Secondary Reconstruction.

This article is based on literature review of relevant articles as well as the authors' own experiences in treating peripheral nerve injuries of the lower limb. The article deals with causative factors of lower limb nerve injuries, various grading systems of the injuries, approaches to such injuries, and techniques to repair lower limb nerve injuries. It also enumerates several reasons to explain the poorer prognosis of peroneal nerve injuries and the possible distal nerve transfers in lower limb albeit with poorer outcomes.