uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparative study of single-, double-, and triple-nerve transfer to a common target: experimental study of rat brachial plexus
Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, TLinkou-Taipei, Taiwan.
Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, TLinkou-Taipei, Taiwan.
Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, TLinkou-Taipei, Taiwan.
Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, TLinkou-Taipei, Taiwan.
Show others and affiliations
2011 (English)In: Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), ISSN 0032-1052, E-ISSN 1529-4242, Vol. 127, no 3, 1155-1162 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND:

The purpose of this study was to investigate the recovery of a common target motor function after different single and combined motor nerve transfers in rat brachial plexus model.

METHODS:

The musculocutaneous nerve and biceps muscle were chosen as the target for neurotization. The phrenic, pectoral, and suprascapular nerves were selected as the neurotizers. Forty-two Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly assigned to seven groups (six rats in each group): single-neurotizer transfer (three groups), double-neurotizer transfer (three groups), and triple-neurotizer transfer (one group). The contralateral intact forelimb was used as a control. Functional outcomes were measured by grooming test, electrophysiological study, muscle contraction strength, muscle weight, and axon counts.

RESULTS:

At 12 weeks, 40 operative rats were studied (two had died). In the single-neurotizer transfer, all three transfers showed no significant difference in motor recovery of the biceps. In the double-neurotizer transfer groups, the worst results were seen in group 6 (combined pectoral and suprascapular nerve transfer) despite increasing axon counts.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study may potentially suggest: (1) single-neurotizer transfer will not have synergistic or antagonistic effects; (2) two neurotizers with functional antagonism will significantly downgrade motor recovery of the neurotized muscle despite increasing axon counts; (3) multiple motor neurotizer transfers may not always provide a better outcome, although increasing axons may outweigh antagonistic effects; and (4) phrenic nerve transfer alone did not upgrade the functional outcome despite its automatic discharge. Any nerve transfer combined with phrenic nerve transfer, however, showed improved functional results.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 127, no 3, 1155-1162 p.
National Category
Neurosciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-163044DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820439f0PubMedID: 21364418OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-163044DiVA: diva2:462555
Available from: 2011-12-07 Created: 2011-12-07 Last updated: 2017-12-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Rodriguez Lorenzo, Andres

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Rodriguez Lorenzo, Andres
In the same journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)
Neurosciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 403 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf