Outcomes of Single versus Double Fascicular Nerve Transfers for Restoration of Elbow Flexion in Patients with Brachial Plexus Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elbow flexion after upper brachial plexus injury may be restored by a nerve transfer from the ulnar nerve to the biceps motor branch with an optional nerve transfer from the median nerve to the brachialis motor branch (single and double fascicular nerve transfer). This meta-analysis assesses the effectiveness of both techniques and the added value of additional reinnervation of the brachialis muscle. METHODS: Comprehensive searches were performed identifying studies concerning restoration of elbow flexion through single and double fascicular nerve transfers. Only C5 to C6 lesion patients were included in quantitative analysis to prevent confounding by indication. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients reaching British Medical Research Council elbow flexion grade 3 or greater. Meta-analysis was performed with random effects models. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included (n = 688). In quantitative analysis, 29 studies were included (n = 341). After single fascicular nerve transfer, 190 of 207 patients reached Medical Research Council grade 3 or higher (random effects model, 95.6 percent; 95 percent CI, 92.9 to 98.2 percent); and after double fascicular nerve transfer, 128 of 134 patients reached grade 3 or higher (random effects model, 97.5 percent; 95 percent CI, 95.0 to 100 percent; p = 0.301). Significantly more double nerve transfer patients reached grade 4 or greater if preoperative delay was 6 months or less (84 of 101 versus 49 of 51; p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Additional reinnervation of the brachialis muscle did not result in significantly more patients reaching Medical Research Council grade 3 or higher for elbow flexion. Double fascicular nerve transfer may result in more patients reaching grade 4 or higher in patients with a preoperative delay less than 6 months. The median nerve may be preserved or used for another nerve transfer without substantially impairing elbow flexion restoration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".