A Systematic Review of Brachial Plexus Surgery for Birth-Related Brachial Plexus Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Brachial plexus injury complicates 0.6-2.6 per 1,000 live births. Surgery is sometimes advocated for patients who fail to improve with conservative management. We reviewed the available literature on birth-related brachial plexus palsy in order to provide recommendations for surgical management, using evidence-based criteria. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching Medline (1966-2002) and the Cochrane Library using the terms brachial plexus, neonate or infant, surgery and natural history. The reference lists of relevant articles were also reviewed. The search was restricted to articles published in English. Each article was classified according to its methodology. Management recommendations were suggested based on the results of the studies identified and the degree of certainty of the available literature. RESULTS: Twenty-three papers were selected for detailed analysis. There are no randomized controlled trials that have investigated the role of brachial plexus surgery in the management of birth-related brachial plexus palsy. Two prospective studies of relevance were found, one describing the natural history of birth-related brachial plexus injury and one evaluating surgery for these patients. The remainder consisted of retrospective case series. Outcomes from surgical series are generally favorable (level III and V evidence). Direct comparison with the natural history could not be inferred from the series reviewed given the lack of controls. CONCLUSION: There is no conclusive evidence showing a benefit of surgery over conservative management approaches in the treatment of patients with birth-related brachial plexus injuries. Surgery remains a valid practice option given the level III and V evidence suggesting a possible benefit of surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".