The comparative efficacy of nerve transfer versus tendon transfer in the management of radial palsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Functional recovery
Motor recovery
Nerve transfer
Radial palsy
Tendon transfer
Journal
Journal of orthopaedics
ISSN: 0972-978X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101233220
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2024
Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
04
11
2023
accepted:
10
11
2023
pmc-release:
01
02
2025
medline:
7
12
2023
pubmed:
7
12
2023
entrez:
7
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is no clear census as to which operative technique provides better recovery for radial nerve injuries. Therefore, in this systematic review, we examined the functional recovery, patient-reported outcomes, and complications of tendon transfer (TT) and nerve transfer (NT). Five electronic databases were searched for studies (>10 cases per study) comparing NT and TT regardless of the study design (observational or experimental). Manual search was also conducted. The quality was assessed by the NIH tool. Outcomes included functional recovery, patient-reported outcomes (DASH score, satisfaction, and inability to return to work), and complications. The prevalence was pooled across studies using STATA software, and then, a subgroup analysis based on the intervention type. Twenty-one studies (542 patients) were analyzed. Excellent recovery, assessed by the Bincaz scale, was higher in the TT group (29 % vs. 11 %) as well as failure to extend the fingers (49 % vs. 9 %). No significant difference was noted between both groups regarding DASH score (mean difference = -2.76; 95 % CI: -12.66: 6.93). Satisfaction was great in the TT group (89 %) with a limited proportion of patients unable to return to work (7 %). Complications were slightly higher in the TT group (8 % vs. 7 %) while 18 % of patients undergoing TT requiring revision surgery. Radial deviation was encountered in 18 % of patients in the TT group and 0 % in the NT group. The quality was good, fair, and poor in 2, 13, and 6, respectively. In radial nerve injuries, although tendon transfer may seem to provide better functional motor recovery than nerve transfer, it is associated with a higher rate of failure to extend the finger. Given the large confidence interval, the accuracy of this finding is questioned. However, a great proportion of those patients require revision surgery afterward. Additionally, tendon transfer is associated with a greater complication rate than nerve transfer, particularly radial deviation.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
There is no clear census as to which operative technique provides better recovery for radial nerve injuries. Therefore, in this systematic review, we examined the functional recovery, patient-reported outcomes, and complications of tendon transfer (TT) and nerve transfer (NT).
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Five electronic databases were searched for studies (>10 cases per study) comparing NT and TT regardless of the study design (observational or experimental). Manual search was also conducted. The quality was assessed by the NIH tool. Outcomes included functional recovery, patient-reported outcomes (DASH score, satisfaction, and inability to return to work), and complications. The prevalence was pooled across studies using STATA software, and then, a subgroup analysis based on the intervention type.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Twenty-one studies (542 patients) were analyzed. Excellent recovery, assessed by the Bincaz scale, was higher in the TT group (29 % vs. 11 %) as well as failure to extend the fingers (49 % vs. 9 %). No significant difference was noted between both groups regarding DASH score (mean difference = -2.76; 95 % CI: -12.66: 6.93). Satisfaction was great in the TT group (89 %) with a limited proportion of patients unable to return to work (7 %). Complications were slightly higher in the TT group (8 % vs. 7 %) while 18 % of patients undergoing TT requiring revision surgery. Radial deviation was encountered in 18 % of patients in the TT group and 0 % in the NT group. The quality was good, fair, and poor in 2, 13, and 6, respectively.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
In radial nerve injuries, although tendon transfer may seem to provide better functional motor recovery than nerve transfer, it is associated with a higher rate of failure to extend the finger. Given the large confidence interval, the accuracy of this finding is questioned. However, a great proportion of those patients require revision surgery afterward. Additionally, tendon transfer is associated with a greater complication rate than nerve transfer, particularly radial deviation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38059217
doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2023.11.026
pii: S0972-978X(23)00296-9
pmc: PMC10696201
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
25-31Informations de copyright
© 2023 Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
All of the study authors declare no competing interested associated with the conduct of this research.
Références
Emerg Med J. 2020 Jun;37(6):387
pubmed: 32253195
J Hand Surg Am. 2011 Feb;36(2):201-8
pubmed: 21168979
Hand Clin. 2016 May;32(2):209-17
pubmed: 27094892
Hand Surg Rehabil. 2017 Jun;36(3):151-172
pubmed: 28521852
J Hand Surg Am. 2008 Jan;33(1):83-6
pubmed: 18261670
Arch Public Health. 2014 Nov 10;72(1):39
pubmed: 25810908
Hand (N Y). 2022 Nov;17(6):1082-1089
pubmed: 33530787
J Hand Surg Br. 1993 Jun;18(3):320-2
pubmed: 8393905
Bull Hosp Jt Dis Orthop Inst. 1990 Spring;50(1):1-10
pubmed: 2163698
J Hand Surg Br. 2006 Oct;31(5):502-6
pubmed: 16928411
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022 Nov 12;23(1):980
pubmed: 36371190
Handb Clin Neurol. 2012;109:167-79
pubmed: 23098712
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2012 Nov;37(9):855-62
pubmed: 22311919
J Neurointerv Surg. 2022 Aug;14(8):779-782
pubmed: 35022301
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020 Apr;106(2):307-310
pubmed: 32061574
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997 Sep;100(3):610-6; discussion 617-8
pubmed: 9283558
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020 Mar 15;28(6):e263-e269
pubmed: 31714418
J Hand Surg Am. 2009 Mar;34(3):474-8
pubmed: 19258145
Malays Orthop J. 2018 Mar;12(1):1-6
pubmed: 29725505
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2015 Dec;23(3):345-8
pubmed: 26715715
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020 Jul-Aug;11(4):630-636
pubmed: 32684701
Epidemiology. 2011 Jan;22(1):128; author reply 128
pubmed: 21150360
Indian J Orthop. 2011 Nov;45(6):558-62
pubmed: 22144751
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020 Jul-Aug;11(4):614-619
pubmed: 32684698
J Hand Surg Am. 2005 Sep;30(5):1068-73
pubmed: 16182069
Hand. 1976 Jun;8(2):134-6
pubmed: 939436
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002 Sep 15;110(4):1099-113
pubmed: 12198425
J Hand Surg Am. 2020 May;45(5):418-426
pubmed: 32093993
J Hand Surg Am. 1978 Nov;3(6):560-70
pubmed: 214482
J Rehabil Med. 2008 Aug;40(8):665-71
pubmed: 19020701
J Neurosurg. 2007 Sep;107(3):666-71
pubmed: 17886570
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2018 Apr 12;2(4):e001
pubmed: 30211383
HSS J. 2016 Feb;12(1):2-7
pubmed: 26855620
Clin Plast Surg. 2011 Oct;38(4):621-42
pubmed: 22032590
Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 Jan;35(1):49-60
pubmed: 31720912
Eye (Lond). 2023 Nov;37(16):3322-3333
pubmed: 37072471
Muscle Nerve. 1988 Jul;11(7):745-51
pubmed: 3405241
Indian J Orthop. 2019 Sep-Oct;53(5):607-612
pubmed: 31488927
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Mar;135(3):617e-630e
pubmed: 25719726