ABSTRACT
Objective To observe the outcomes of the modified multiple nerve transfer s combined with the late hand function reconstruction to restore the active pick-up function of the paralyzed upper extremity in patients with total brachial plexus avulsion injuries (TBPAI).Methods 33 patients suffered with TBPAI firstly underwent multiple nerve transfers,which including accessory nerve transfers to neurotize the suprascapular nerve to recover the shoulder abduction,contralateral C7 (CC7) nerve transfers via the modified pre-spinal route with direct coaptation to restore lower trunk function and the musculocutaneous nerve was also neurotized by the transferred CC7 nerve via a cutaneous nerve graft to restore the function of elbow flexion,as well as the phrenic nerve transfers to neurotize the posterior division of lower trunk to restore the function of elbow and finger extension.The patients with muscle recovery were selected to perform the hand function reconstruction at the second stage for restoring the active pick-up function.The patients were chosen as followcriterias:the degree of shoulder abduction attained 30°or more,the motor power of elbow,wrist,and finger flexion attained grade M4 or more,elbow and finger extension attained M3 or more.The methods of hand function reconstruction included wrist fusion and flexor carpal ulnaris opponensplasty,in addition to palmar capsulodesis of the metacarpophalangeal joint.Results The mean follow up was 41±7.7 (range,36-73 months) after the first procedure of multiple nerve transfers,the muscle strength of elbow and finger and wrist flexion attained M 4 as well as the elbow and finger extension achieved M3 or more in 10 patients,all of 10 patients achieved 40°-80°shoulder abduction.8 out of 10 patients had performed the second surgical procedure for hand functional reconstruction.6 of them had successfully recovered the active pick-up function.Conclusions The newly designed procedure of multiple nerve transfers could effectively restore the function of shoulder abduction,elbow,wrist,and finger flexion,as well as elbows and finger extension in patients with TBPAI,combined with the hand functional reconstruction,active pick-up function could be successfully reconstructed.
ABSTRACT
Objective To study the classification, management and outcome of the injury of hamatometacarpal joint. Methods Retrospective analysis was carried out in 17 patients with injury of hamatometacarpal joint. There were 16 males and 1 female aged 19-51 years old. 3 in left hand and 14 in right hand were injuried. The dominant hands of all were right hand. The injury of hamatometacarpal joint might be classified into 4 major groups based on the condition of the hamate, and subdivided into 2 subtypes based on the isolated dislocation(subluxation) or fracture-dislocation of metacarpal base. Carpometacarpal joint ligment injury without fracture of hamatum and the fourth or fifth metacarpal base dislocation without fracture was defined as typeⅠa. When there was a fracture of the fourth or fifth metacarpal base following typeⅠa was defined as typeⅠb. Avulsion fracture of the back of hamatum and the fourth and/or the fifth metacarpal base dislocation without fracture was defined as type Ⅱa. With the fracture of the fourth or fifth metacarpal base following the typeⅡa was defined as type Ⅱb. Splintered fracture of the back of hamatum with the fourth and/or fifth metacarpal base dislocation without fracture was defined as typeⅢa. With the fracture of metacarpal base following typeⅢa was defined as typeⅢb. The split fracture of coronal side of hamatum with the fourth and/or fifth metacarpal base dislocation and without fracture was defined as type Ⅳa. With fracture of the fourth and/or fifth metacarpal base following type Ⅳa was defined as type Ⅳb. There were 7 typeⅠb, 2 typeⅡa, 1 typeⅡb, 2 typeⅢb, 1 typeⅣa, 4 type Ⅳb in our group. We chose conservative or operative treatment according to the type of injury. Results The follow-up was 4-96 months. The patients had fracture union rate of 100%, and no traumatic osteoarthritis was occurred. There was a statistical significance when the motion of two-side joints was compared post surgery. There was no significant difference between bilateral hand in grip strength. Subjective evaluations of the patients were good or excellent. No complications was occurred. There is no case involved in any complications such as traumatic arthrositis, inflammation, neural injuries and adhesion of tendon. Conclusion The stable injury of hamatometacarpal joint should be ideally treated by closed reduction and immobilization in a well-moulded cast or splint. Satisfactory outcome can be got if keeping under strict surveillance. The unstable or intra-articular fracture should be treated by surgery. The outcome is also satisfactory and the rate of the complication of traumatic arthritis is low in short period follow-up. The outcome of fresh injury is much better than old one.