Suppr超能文献

神经与肌腱转位治疗桡神经麻痹重建。

Nerve Versus Tendon Transfer for Radial Nerve Paralysis Reconstruction.

机构信息

Center of Biological and Health Sciences, Department of Neurosurgery, University of the South of Santa Catarina (Unisul), Tubarão; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Governador Celso Ramos Hospital, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.

出版信息

J Hand Surg Am. 2020 May;45(5):418-426. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.12.009. Epub 2020 Feb 21.

Abstract

PURPOSE

With radial nerve lesions, the results of nerve transfers and how they objectively compare with the outcomes of tendon transfers remain unstudied. We compared the results after nerve transfer in patients with less than 12 months since radial nerve injury with the results after tendon transfer in patients not eligible for nerve surgery because of longstanding paralysis (minimum of 15 months).

METHODS

In 14 patients with radial nerve lesions incurred less than 12 months previously, we transferred the anterior interosseous nerve to the nerve of the extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB), while the nerve to the flexor carpi radialis was transferred to the posterior interosseous nerve. In 13 patients with lesions of longer duration, we transferred the pronator teres tendon to the ECRB, the flexor carpi ulnaris tendon to the extensor digitorum communis, and the palmaris longus to the rerouted extensor pollicis longus (EPL) tendon. At a final evaluation, we measured passive and active range of motion (ROM) of the wrist, finger, and thumb and grasp strength.

RESULTS

In a comparison of wrist flexion-extension ROM and grasp strength, we observed better recovery in the nerve transfer than in the tendon transfer group. In the tendon transfer group, we observed limitations in wrist flexion in 9 of the 13 patients and permanent radial deviation in 5. Half of the patients in the tendon transfer group needed to flex their wrist to fully extend their fingers, whereas finger extension was possible with the wrist either extended or at neutral in all patients following nerve transfer. After nerve transfer, extension at the first carpometacarpal joint was restored in 11 of the 14 patients, whereas this occurred in just 4 of the 13 patients following tendon transfer. In both groups, we observed a 30° lag in thumb metacarpophalangeal extension, which reflects poor recovery of EPL function.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we observed better outcomes in those who underwent nerve transfer versus tendon transfer procedures. However, room still remains for improved thumb motion with both procedures.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

摘要

目的

桡神经损伤后,神经转移的效果及其与肌腱转移效果的客观比较仍未得到研究。我们比较了桡神经损伤后 12 个月内接受神经转移的患者与因长期瘫痪(至少 15 个月)而不能接受神经手术的患者(肌腱转移)的结果。

方法

在 14 例桡神经损伤小于 12 个月的患者中,我们将正中神经转移到桡侧腕短伸肌神经(ECRB),而将桡侧屈腕肌神经转移到骨间后神经。在 13 例病程较长的患者中,我们将旋前圆肌肌腱转移到 ECRB,尺侧腕屈肌肌腱转移到指总伸肌,掌长肌腱转移到重新布线的拇长展肌肌腱(EPL)。在最终评估时,我们测量了腕、手指和拇指的被动和主动活动范围(ROM)和抓握力。

结果

在比较腕关节屈伸 ROM 和握力时,我们观察到神经转移组的恢复优于肌腱转移组。在肌腱转移组,我们观察到 13 例中有 9 例存在腕关节屈曲受限,5 例存在永久性桡偏。肌腱转移组的一半患者需要弯曲手腕才能完全伸展手指,而所有接受神经转移的患者的手指伸展都可以在手腕伸展或中立位进行。神经转移后,14 例中有 11 例恢复了第一腕掌关节的伸展,而肌腱转移后只有 13 例中有 4 例恢复。在这两组中,我们都观察到拇指掌指关节伸展的 30°滞后,这反映了 EPL 功能恢复不良。

结论

总的来说,我们观察到神经转移组的结果优于肌腱转移组。然而,这两种手术都还有进一步改善拇指运动的空间。

类型的研究/证据水平:治疗性 IV。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验