一项随机对照试验,比较臂丛神经损伤患者脊髓附属神经与肩胛上神经转移前路与后路的效果。

IF 0.5 Q4 SURGERY
Anand Agrawal, Akshay Kapoor, Vivek Singh, Neeraj Rao, Debarati Chattopadhyay
{"title":"一项随机对照试验,比较臂丛神经损伤患者脊髓附属神经与肩胛上神经转移前路与后路的效果。","authors":"Anand Agrawal, Akshay Kapoor, Vivek Singh, Neeraj Rao, Debarati Chattopadhyay","doi":"10.1142/S2424835523500741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> In brachial plexus surgery, a key focus is restoring shoulder abduction through spinal accessory nerve (SAN) to suprascapular nerve (SSN) transfer using either the anterior or posterior approach. However, no published randomised control trials have directly compared their outcomes to date. Therefore, our study aims to assess motor outcomes for both approaches. <b>Methods:</b> This study comprises two groups of patients. Group A: anterior approach (29 patients), Group B: Posterior approach (29 patients). Patients were allocated to both groups using selective randomisation with the sealed envelope technique. Functional outcome was assessed by grading the muscle power of shoulder abductors using the British Medical Research Council (MRC) scale. <b>Results:</b> Five patients who were operated on by posterior approach had ossified superior transverse suprascapular ligament. In these cases, the approach was changed from posterior to anterior to avoid injury to SSN. Due to this reason, the treatment analysis was done considering the distribution as: Group A: 34, Group B: 24. The mean duration of appearance of first clinical sign of shoulder abduction was 8.16 months in Group A, whereas in Group B, it was 6.85 months, which was significantly earlier (<i>p</i> < 0.05). At the 18-month follow-up, both intention-to-treat analysis and as-treated analysis were performed, and there was no statistical difference in the outcome of shoulder abduction between the approaches for SAN to SSN nerve transfer. <b>Conclusions:</b> Our study found no significant difference in the restoration of shoulder abduction power between both approaches; therefore, either approach can be used for patients presenting early for surgery. Since the appearance of first clinical sign of recovery is earlier in posterior approach, therefore, it can be preferred for cases presenting at a later stage. Also, the choice of approach is guided on a case to case basis depending on clavicular fractures and surgeon preference to the approach. <b>Level of Evidence:</b> Level II (Therapeutic).</p>","PeriodicalId":51689,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Surgery-Asian-Pacific Volume","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Randomised Control Trial Comparing the Outcomes of Anterior with Posterior Approach for Transfer of Spinal Accessory Nerve to Suprascapular Nerve in Brachial Plexus Injuries.\",\"authors\":\"Anand Agrawal, Akshay Kapoor, Vivek Singh, Neeraj Rao, Debarati Chattopadhyay\",\"doi\":\"10.1142/S2424835523500741\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> In brachial plexus surgery, a key focus is restoring shoulder abduction through spinal accessory nerve (SAN) to suprascapular nerve (SSN) transfer using either the anterior or posterior approach. However, no published randomised control trials have directly compared their outcomes to date. Therefore, our study aims to assess motor outcomes for both approaches. <b>Methods:</b> This study comprises two groups of patients. Group A: anterior approach (29 patients), Group B: Posterior approach (29 patients). Patients were allocated to both groups using selective randomisation with the sealed envelope technique. Functional outcome was assessed by grading the muscle power of shoulder abductors using the British Medical Research Council (MRC) scale. <b>Results:</b> Five patients who were operated on by posterior approach had ossified superior transverse suprascapular ligament. In these cases, the approach was changed from posterior to anterior to avoid injury to SSN. Due to this reason, the treatment analysis was done considering the distribution as: Group A: 34, Group B: 24. The mean duration of appearance of first clinical sign of shoulder abduction was 8.16 months in Group A, whereas in Group B, it was 6.85 months, which was significantly earlier (<i>p</i> < 0.05). At the 18-month follow-up, both intention-to-treat analysis and as-treated analysis were performed, and there was no statistical difference in the outcome of shoulder abduction between the approaches for SAN to SSN nerve transfer. <b>Conclusions:</b> Our study found no significant difference in the restoration of shoulder abduction power between both approaches; therefore, either approach can be used for patients presenting early for surgery. Since the appearance of first clinical sign of recovery is earlier in posterior approach, therefore, it can be preferred for cases presenting at a later stage. Also, the choice of approach is guided on a case to case basis depending on clavicular fractures and surgeon preference to the approach. <b>Level of Evidence:</b> Level II (Therapeutic).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hand Surgery-Asian-Pacific Volume\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hand Surgery-Asian-Pacific Volume\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835523500741\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Surgery-Asian-Pacific Volume","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835523500741","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:臂丛神经手术的重点是通过前路或后路脊髓副神经(SAN)到肩胛上神经(SSN)的转移来恢复肩关节外展。然而,迄今为止还没有公开发表的随机对照试验对两者的结果进行直接比较。因此,我们的研究旨在评估两种方法的运动效果。方法:本研究包括两组患者。A 组:前路(29 名患者),B 组:后路(29 名患者)。患者通过密封信封技术选择性随机分配到两组。采用英国医学研究委员会(MRC)的量表对肩关节外展肌的肌力进行分级,以评估功能结果。结果五名采用后路手术的患者肩胛上横韧带骨化。在这些病例中,为避免损伤 SSN,手术方式由后入路改为前入路。因此,在进行治疗分析时考虑了以下分布情况:A组:34例,B组:24例。A 组首次出现肩关节外展临床症状的平均时间为 8.16 个月,而 B 组为 6.85 个月,明显提前(P < 0.05)。在 18 个月的随访中,进行了意向治疗分析和治疗分析,结果显示,SAN 至 SSN 神经转移的两种方法在肩关节外展方面没有统计学差异。结论:我们的研究发现,两种方法在恢复肩关节外展能力方面没有明显差异;因此,对于早期接受手术的患者,两种方法均可使用。由于后路方法出现第一个临床恢复迹象的时间较早,因此,对于较晚出现症状的病例,可优先选择后路方法。此外,根据锁骨骨折的具体情况和外科医生对手术方式的偏好,选择不同的手术方式。证据等级:二级(治疗)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Randomised Control Trial Comparing the Outcomes of Anterior with Posterior Approach for Transfer of Spinal Accessory Nerve to Suprascapular Nerve in Brachial Plexus Injuries.

Background: In brachial plexus surgery, a key focus is restoring shoulder abduction through spinal accessory nerve (SAN) to suprascapular nerve (SSN) transfer using either the anterior or posterior approach. However, no published randomised control trials have directly compared their outcomes to date. Therefore, our study aims to assess motor outcomes for both approaches. Methods: This study comprises two groups of patients. Group A: anterior approach (29 patients), Group B: Posterior approach (29 patients). Patients were allocated to both groups using selective randomisation with the sealed envelope technique. Functional outcome was assessed by grading the muscle power of shoulder abductors using the British Medical Research Council (MRC) scale. Results: Five patients who were operated on by posterior approach had ossified superior transverse suprascapular ligament. In these cases, the approach was changed from posterior to anterior to avoid injury to SSN. Due to this reason, the treatment analysis was done considering the distribution as: Group A: 34, Group B: 24. The mean duration of appearance of first clinical sign of shoulder abduction was 8.16 months in Group A, whereas in Group B, it was 6.85 months, which was significantly earlier (p < 0.05). At the 18-month follow-up, both intention-to-treat analysis and as-treated analysis were performed, and there was no statistical difference in the outcome of shoulder abduction between the approaches for SAN to SSN nerve transfer. Conclusions: Our study found no significant difference in the restoration of shoulder abduction power between both approaches; therefore, either approach can be used for patients presenting early for surgery. Since the appearance of first clinical sign of recovery is earlier in posterior approach, therefore, it can be preferred for cases presenting at a later stage. Also, the choice of approach is guided on a case to case basis depending on clavicular fractures and surgeon preference to the approach. Level of Evidence: Level II (Therapeutic).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
304
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信