7. Upper Limb Transplantation at Proximal Forearm Level: The Donor Muscle Sleeve Technique
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Optimal results in hand and upper limb transplantation require comprehensive assessment of immune and physical matching criteria, and careful consideration of the anatomical requirements of each patient. A core principle of the UK Hand and Upper Limb (HAUL) program is that, in the event of transplant loss, recipients should not be left at a substantial functional disadvantage in comparison to their pre-transplant condition. In this context, transplantation at proximal forearm level is challenging. Proximal to the tendons, muscle coaptation is unreliable, and while proximal revision and transhumeral transplantation would offer the functional benefit of intact donor forearm muscle-tendon units, subsequent re-amputation would leave the patient significantly disadvantaged. Instead we aim to conserve enough forearm skeletal length to drive a prosthesis if required. We present the donor muscle sleeve (DMS) technique as our approach to such cases. Methods: The UK HAUL-Tx cohort includes two patients with bilateral proximal forearm amputations transplanted using the donor muscle-sleeve technique. The surgical technique and outcomes will be presented in detail. Briefly, the recipient dissection commences with design and elevation of interdigitating skin flaps. The median, ulnar and radial nerve motor and sensory branches are identified, dissected and tagged. Pronator teres and the deep belly of supinator are preserved with their innervation. All remaining residual forearm musculature is excised. Radial and ulnar terminal osteotomies are freshened with minimal shortening beyond the junction of proximal and distal third forearm. Donor limbs are retrieved by transhumeral amputation, flushed, chilled and packaged for transfer according to standard protocols. Dissection subsequently proceeds with elevation of corresponding skin flaps, and dissection of median, ulnar and radial nerve motor and sensory branches. The flexor and extensor muscles are elevated en masse from their origins. Brachioradialis is preserved, and pronator teres and supinator excised. Required skeletal length is determined and osteotomies performed. Following osteosynthesis the donor flexor and extensor origins, and brachioradialis, are fixed with bone anchors and periosteal sutures to secure the muscle sleeve. The limb is reperfused by anastomosis of the brachial artery, venae comitantes and superficial veins, and targeted motor and sensory nerve coaptations performed. Results: Two individuals have undergone DMS transplant technique, with 8 and 3 years follow-up. Psychosocial and immunological outcomes are comparable to overall cohort means. Functional recovery relies on reinnervation of the donor muscles, and therefore progresses more slowly than more distal-level transplants. Recordable grip strength on dynamometer is first seen at the end of year 2 and year 1 respectively, with slow continued increase and plateauing at year 5 post-operatively in the individual with 8 years follow up. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure - Satisfaction (COPM-S) scores improved from 1.8 & 2.5 to 3.25 and 6.4 respectively post-transplant. Performance score (COPM-P) improved from 1.8 and 3.1 to 2.25 and 5.0. Recovery of sensation and strength have been sufficient for functional integration of the limbs and both have returned to independent self care and leisure activities. Conclusion: The donor muscle sleeve technique facilitates transplantation of the proximal-forearm level amputee with preservation of skeletal length which could be resurfaced in the event of transplant loss, preserving pre-transplant functional capacity with prosthesis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».