Posterior versus anterior approach for contralateral C7 nerve transfer in post-stroke upper limb spastic hemiplegia: A comparative retrospective study.
Shuide Chen, Siyuan Pan, Seidu A Richard, Zhigang Lan
{"title":"Posterior versus anterior approach for contralateral C7 nerve transfer in post-stroke upper limb spastic hemiplegia: A comparative retrospective study.","authors":"Shuide Chen, Siyuan Pan, Seidu A Richard, Zhigang Lan","doi":"10.1097/MD.0000000000045086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Several surgical approaches for contralateral C7 (CC7) nerve root transfer (NRT) exist, but they come with challenges such as long nerve bridging distances, complex surgical anatomy, and prolonged recovery times. Our objective was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of the posterior single-incision CC7 (PSCC7) NRT approach (posterior group) with the traditional anterior CC7 (ACC7) NRT approach (anterior group) for treating post-stroke upper limb spastic hemiplegia (PULSH). In this retrospective study, we retrieved and compared clinical efficacy as well as safety of the posterior group with the traditional anterior group for treating PULSH between February 2024 and February 2025. Key outcome measures included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, and functional recovery at 6-month follow-up. In all, 12 patients who underwent the posterior group and 30 patients (control group) who underwent the traditional anterior group were retrieved from the hospital records. The posterior group demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (3.2 ± 0.5 hours vs 4.5 ± 0.8 hours, P < .01) and less intraoperative blood loss (150 ± 4 0 mL vs 280 ± 70 mL, P < .01) compared to the anterior group. The posterior group achieved comparable or superior improvements in Modified Ashworth Scale scores (1.2 ± 0.3 vs 1.5 ± 0.4, P > .05) and Berg Balance Scale scores (42 ± 5 vs 39 ± 6, P > .05). The posterior group is a safe and effective treatment for PULSH. It offers the advantages of reduced surgical trauma and shorter operative time.</p>","PeriodicalId":18549,"journal":{"name":"Medicine","volume":"104 40","pages":"e45086"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12499671/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000045086","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Several surgical approaches for contralateral C7 (CC7) nerve root transfer (NRT) exist, but they come with challenges such as long nerve bridging distances, complex surgical anatomy, and prolonged recovery times. Our objective was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of the posterior single-incision CC7 (PSCC7) NRT approach (posterior group) with the traditional anterior CC7 (ACC7) NRT approach (anterior group) for treating post-stroke upper limb spastic hemiplegia (PULSH). In this retrospective study, we retrieved and compared clinical efficacy as well as safety of the posterior group with the traditional anterior group for treating PULSH between February 2024 and February 2025. Key outcome measures included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, and functional recovery at 6-month follow-up. In all, 12 patients who underwent the posterior group and 30 patients (control group) who underwent the traditional anterior group were retrieved from the hospital records. The posterior group demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (3.2 ± 0.5 hours vs 4.5 ± 0.8 hours, P < .01) and less intraoperative blood loss (150 ± 4 0 mL vs 280 ± 70 mL, P < .01) compared to the anterior group. The posterior group achieved comparable or superior improvements in Modified Ashworth Scale scores (1.2 ± 0.3 vs 1.5 ± 0.4, P > .05) and Berg Balance Scale scores (42 ± 5 vs 39 ± 6, P > .05). The posterior group is a safe and effective treatment for PULSH. It offers the advantages of reduced surgical trauma and shorter operative time.
对侧C7 (CC7)神经根转移(NRT)有几种手术入路,但存在神经桥接距离长、手术解剖复杂、恢复时间长等挑战。我们的目的是评估和比较后切口CC7 (PSCC7) NRT入路(后组)与传统前路CC7 (ACC7) NRT入路(前组)治疗脑卒中后上肢痉挛性偏瘫(PULSH)的临床疗效和安全性。在这项回顾性研究中,我们检索并比较了2024年2月至2025年2月期间后路组与传统前路组治疗PULSH的临床疗效和安全性。主要结局指标包括手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症和6个月随访时的功能恢复情况。总共从医院记录中检索了12例后路组患者和30例传统前路组患者(对照组)。后路组手术时间明显缩短(3.2±0.5 h vs 4.5±0.8 h)。05)和Berg平衡量表得分(42±5 vs 39±6,P < 0.05)。后路组是一种安全有效的治疗PULSH的方法。具有手术创伤小、手术时间短等优点。
期刊介绍:
Medicine is now a fully open access journal, providing authors with a distinctive new service offering continuous publication of original research across a broad spectrum of medical scientific disciplines and sub-specialties.
As an open access title, Medicine will continue to provide authors with an established, trusted platform for the publication of their work. To ensure the ongoing quality of Medicine’s content, the peer-review process will only accept content that is scientifically, technically and ethically sound, and in compliance with standard reporting guidelines.