Résumé
Background: Restoring shoulder mobility, stability, and strength is a key goal in patients with brachial plexus injuries. Shoulder arthrodesis is chiefly used as an adjunct to, or after failure of, initial direct nerve surgery. The objective of this study was to compare clinical and functional shoulder outcomes after direct nerve transfer vs. shoulder arthrodesis in adults with supra-clavicular brachial plexus injuries.
Hypothesis: Shoulder arthrodesis, currently used as a salvage procedure in brachial palsy injuries, deserves to be viewed to a valid alternative to direct nerve transfer.
Material and methods: A retrospective study was conducted in 58 patients with a follow-up of at least 2 years. Among them, 20 were managed by transfer of a spinal accessory nerve fascicle to the supra-scapular nerve and 38 by shoulder arthrodesis. Outcome measures were shoulder range-of-motion, isometric shoulder strength, and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score.
Results: Mean age at surgery was 24 years and mean follow-up was 46 months (range, 24-156 months). Motion ranges of the shoulder were not significantly different between the two treatment groups. Data variance was significantly greater in the nerve transfer group than in the shoulder arthrodesis group for scapular antepulsion (p = 0.0011), abduction (p <0.001), and external rotation (p = 0.0066). Strength was significantly greater in the arthrodesis group in all directions of motion. The DASH scores showed no significant between-group differences.
Conclusions: The results of this study conflict with the widely help opinion that nerve transfer to the suprascapularis nerve produces better clinical outcomes compared to shoulder arthrodesis. Nerve transfer was not better than shoulder arthrodesis in our patients. The data variance heterogeneity suggests poor predictability and reliability of nerve transfer, in contrast to the modest but predictable and uniform results of shoulder arthrodesis. Level of evidence: IV, retrospective observational comparative study. (C) 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.