Nerve Transfer Is Superior to Nerve Grafting for Suprascapular Nerve Reconstruction in Obstetrical Brachial Plexus Birth Injury: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Restoration of shoulder function in obstetrical brachial plexus injury is paramount. There remains debate as to the optimal method of upper trunk reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that spinal accessory nerve to suprascapular nerve transfer leads to improved shoulder external rotation relative to sural nerve grafting. Methods A systematic review of Medline, EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and TRIP Pro from inception was conducted. Our primary outcome was shoulder external rotation. Results Four studies were included. Nerve transfer was associated with greater shoulder external rotation relative to nerve grafting (mean difference: 0.82 AMS 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-1.36, P < .005). Patients undergoing nerve grafting were more likely to undergo a secondary shoulder stabilizing procedure (odds ratio [OR]: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.8376-1.9268). Conclusion In obstetrical brachial plexus injury, nerve transfer is associated with improved shoulder external rotation and a lower rate of secondary shoulder surgery. Level of Evidence Level III; Therapeutic
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".