ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating injury. Restoring upper extremity function is a top priority, which can be accomplished by tendon transfer (TT) and nerve transfer (NT) surgeries. The purpose of this prospective comparative study was to assess long-term changes in UE function between surgical (TT or NT) and non-surgical groups through a comprehensive mixed methods approach. METHODS: This multicenter, cohort study compared data among three groups: those undergoing 1) no surgery 2) TT surgery, or 3) NT surgery. Quantitative data, the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), was collected at baseline and long-term follow-up (6-24 months). Qualitative semi-structured interview data was also obtained from these participants and their identified caregivers at baseline, early follow-up (1 month), and long-term follow-up (6-24 months). RESULTS: Thirty-one participants had quantitative data across all timepoints: no surgery (n=14), TT (n=7), and NT (n=10). SCIM scores improved in TT and NT groups compared to the no surgery group (p<0.05). SF-36 scores did not differ among groups. Qualitative data analysis (n=168 interviews) corroborated SCIM findings: surgical participants and their caregivers reported improvement in transfers and ability to perform activities of daily living, including grooming and self-catheterization. Improved use of electronics and ability to operate a motor vehicle were also reported. Post-operative therapy was identified as a critical component of achieving gains. CONCLUSION: Both TT and NT surgery leads to quantitative and qualitative functional gains as compared to the no surgery group. This comparative information should be used to help surgeons discuss treatment options.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT/OBJECTIVE: To assess short-term changes in health outcomes in people with cervical-level spinal cord injury (SCI) who underwent upper extremity (UE) reconstruction via either novel nerve transfer (NT) or traditional tendon transfer (TT) surgery with individuals who did not undergo UE surgical reconstruction. DESIGN: Prospective, comparative cohort pilot study. PARTICIPANTS: 34 participants with cervical SCI met the following inclusion criteria: age 18 or older, greater than 6 months post-injury, and mid-cervical level SCI American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) A, B or C. SETTING: Two tertiary academic hospitals and their affiliated veterans' hospitals. METHODS: Health outcomes were assessed using two previously validated measures, the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) and Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Demographic, surgical, and survey data were collected at the initial evaluation and one month postoperatively/post-baseline. RESULTS: 34 participants with cervical SCI were recruited across three cohorts: no surgery (n = 16), NT (n = 10), and TT (n = 8). The TT group had a decline in SCIM and SF-36 scores whereas the NT and no surgery groups experienced little change in independence or health status in the immediate perioperative period. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons and rehabilitation providers must recognize differences in the perioperative needs of people with cervical SCI who chose to have restorative UE surgery. Future work should focus on further investigation of health outcomes, change in function, and improving preoperative counseling and cross-disciplinary management.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Nerve transfer (NT) surgery can improve function in people with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). However, the impact of donor nerve deficits remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to quantify donor deficits experienced by individuals with cervical SCI following NT. METHODS: This prospective single-arm, comparative study included people with SCI undergoing upper extremity NTs. Myometry was used to assess muscle strength at baseline and follow-up. The Spinal Cord Independence Measure was used to measure the ability to perform activities of daily living. RESULTS: Ten individuals underwent 20 NTs to restore elbow extension (donor, posterior deltoid; n = 2), hand opening (donor, supinator; n = 7), and hand closing (donor, brachialis; n = 11). Shoulder abduction strength decreased (-5.6% at early and -4.5% late follow-up) in the elbow extension NT. Wrist extension strength decreased at early (-46.9% ± 30.3) and increased by late (76.4% ± 154.0) follow-up in the hand opening NT. No statistically significant change in elbow flexion strength was noted in the hand closing NT. Spinal Cord Independence Measure scores did not change significantly between baseline and early postoperative follow-up; they improved at late follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Use of expendable donor nerves with redundant function to perform NT surgery has relatively little impact on strength or capacity to perform activities of daily living, even in the unique and highly vulnerable SCI population. Early, temporary loss in wrist extension strength can be seen after the supinator to posterior interosseous nerve transfer. This study offers quantitative data about possible diminution of donor function after NT, enabling hand surgeons to better counsel individuals contemplating upper extremity reconstruction. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic I.
