Abstract
Study design:
Retrospective audit.
Objectives:
The objective of this study was to identify the proportion of patients with cervical spinal cord injury who would potentially benefit from nerve transfer surgery to gain active hand opening, and to determine when a safe nerve transfer decision can be made.
Setting:
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Methods:
Case note review of the first 12 months following acute cervical spinal cord injury (2007–2012). Neurological assessment at 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 1 year following injury.
Results:
Fifty-three patients had complete assessments and showed changes in the level of injury and severity of neurological injury between assessments. Forty-two percent of patients had motor complete C5–7 level injuries 12 weeks following injury and would benefit from consideration for nerve transfer to improve hand opening. Fewer (26%) would benefit 1 year following injury owing to a change in the neurological level of injury.
Conclusions:
Twelve-week neurological assessment identifies patients who may benefit from nerve transfer surgery. This enables referral for comprehensive upper limb assessment and reassessment of motor function to determine suitability for surgical intervention. Nerve transfer within the window of opportunity provides active hand opening for patients following cervical spinal cord injury.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Mohammed KD, Rothwell AG, Sinclair SW, Willems SM, Bean AR . Upper limb surgery in tetraplegia. J Bone Joint Surg (British) 1992; 74B: 873–879.
Rothwell A, Sinnott KA, Mohammed KD, Dunn JA, Sinclair SW . Upper limb surgery for tetraplegia: a 10-year re-review of hand function. J Hand Surg 2003; 28A: 489–497.
Bertelli JA, Tacca CP, Ghizoni MF, Kechele PR, Santos MA . Transfer of supinator motor branches to the posterior interosseous nerve to reconstruct thumb and finger extension in tetraplegia: case report. J Hand Surg 2010; 35: 1647–1651.
Fox IK, Davidge KM, Novak CB, Hoben G, Kahn LC, Juknis N et al. Use of peripheral nerve transfers in tetraplegia: evaluation of feasibility and morbidity. Hand 2015; 10: 60–67.
van Zyl N, Hahn JB, Cooper CA, Weymouth MD, Flood SJ, Galea MP . Upper limb reinnervation in C6 Tetraplegia using a triple nerve transfer: case report. J Hand Surg 2014; 39: 1779–1783.
Kirshblum SC, Burns SP, Biering-Sorensen F, Donovan W, Graves DE, Jha A et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011). J Spinal Cord Med 2011; 34: 535–546.
Sinnott KA, Dunn JA, Rothwell AG, Hall A, Post MW . The development of the NZ based International Upper Limb Surgery Registry. Spinal Cord 2014; 52: 611–615.
Burns AS, Lee BS, Ditunno JF Jr, Tessler A . Patient selection for clinical trials: the reliability of the early spinal cord injury examination. J Neurotrauma 2003; 20: 477–482.
Schuld C, Franz S, van Hedel H, Moosburger J, Maier D, Abel R et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury: classification skills of clinicians versus computational algorithms. Spinal cord 2014; 53: 324–331.
Liu N, Zhou M, Krassioukov A, Biering-Sørensen F . Training effectiveness when teaching the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI) to medical students. Spinal Cord 2013; 51: 768–771.
Senjaya F, Midha R . Nerve transfer strategies for spinal cord injury. World Neurosurg 2013; 80: e319–e326.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by Buckley from the Canterbury Medical Research Foundation as a Summer Studentship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simcock, J., Dunn, J., Buckley, N. et al. Identification of patients with cervical SCI suitable for early nerve transfer to achieve hand opening. Spinal Cord 55, 131–134 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2016.128
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2016.128
