Whitney E Muhlestein, Tommy Nai-Jen Chang, Rachel N Logue Cook, Kate W-C Chang, Johnny Chuieng-Yi Lu, Kevin C Chung, Lynda J-S Yang, Susan H Brown, David Chwei-Chin Chuang
{"title":"Quantifying the Impact of C7 Spinal Nerve Harvest on Spontaneous, Patient-Initiated Movement of the Donor Upper Extremity.","authors":"Whitney E Muhlestein, Tommy Nai-Jen Chang, Rachel N Logue Cook, Kate W-C Chang, Johnny Chuieng-Yi Lu, Kevin C Chung, Lynda J-S Yang, Susan H Brown, David Chwei-Chin Chuang","doi":"10.1097/PRS.0000000000011825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transfer of a healthy C7 spinal nerve is a tool for upper extremity reanimation in patients with severe brachial plexus injury (BPI). Its use remains controversial owing to concern for neurological injury to the donor arm. Utilizing wearable motion-sensor technology, we aimed to quantify donor arm morbidity after C7 spinal nerve harvest in patients with pan-BPI, reporting both the time and magnitude of donor arm movement in a real-world setting compared to healthy controls.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventeen patients who underwent contralateral C7 (CC7) transfer for traumatic pan-BPI at least 2 years prior were compared to 14 healthy controls. Each participant wore an accelerometer on both arms for 7 consecutive days. The vector time (VT), or time of movement measured in hours/day, and the vector magnitude (VM), or magnitude of arm movement measured as a single vector magnitude per second, were collected and compared between groups. The correlation between VT and VM and time from C7 spinal nerve harvest was also calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At mean 7.7 years after C7 spinal nerve harvest, there was no difference between donor and control arms for VT (5.76±1.55] vs 5.45±1.22 hours, P = 0.56) or VM (2242236±753853 vs 1919223±579723 activity counts, P = 0.20), regardless of donor arm dominance. The C7 harvest cohort used the injured arm 53% of the time and with 27% of the power of the donor arm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference in time or magnitude of arm movement between donor arms and the arms of healthy controls.</p>","PeriodicalId":20128,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and reconstructive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011825","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Transfer of a healthy C7 spinal nerve is a tool for upper extremity reanimation in patients with severe brachial plexus injury (BPI). Its use remains controversial owing to concern for neurological injury to the donor arm. Utilizing wearable motion-sensor technology, we aimed to quantify donor arm morbidity after C7 spinal nerve harvest in patients with pan-BPI, reporting both the time and magnitude of donor arm movement in a real-world setting compared to healthy controls.
Methods: Seventeen patients who underwent contralateral C7 (CC7) transfer for traumatic pan-BPI at least 2 years prior were compared to 14 healthy controls. Each participant wore an accelerometer on both arms for 7 consecutive days. The vector time (VT), or time of movement measured in hours/day, and the vector magnitude (VM), or magnitude of arm movement measured as a single vector magnitude per second, were collected and compared between groups. The correlation between VT and VM and time from C7 spinal nerve harvest was also calculated.
Results: At mean 7.7 years after C7 spinal nerve harvest, there was no difference between donor and control arms for VT (5.76±1.55] vs 5.45±1.22 hours, P = 0.56) or VM (2242236±753853 vs 1919223±579723 activity counts, P = 0.20), regardless of donor arm dominance. The C7 harvest cohort used the injured arm 53% of the time and with 27% of the power of the donor arm.
Conclusions: There was no significant difference in time or magnitude of arm movement between donor arms and the arms of healthy controls.
期刊介绍:
For more than 70 years Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® has been the one consistently excellent reference for every specialist who uses plastic surgery techniques or works in conjunction with a plastic surgeon. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® , the official journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, is a benefit of Society membership, and is also available on a subscription basis.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery® brings subscribers up-to-the-minute reports on the latest techniques and follow-up for all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including breast reconstruction, experimental studies, maxillofacial reconstruction, hand and microsurgery, burn repair, cosmetic surgery, as well as news on medicolegal issues. The cosmetic section provides expanded coverage on new procedures and techniques and offers more cosmetic-specific content than any other journal. All subscribers enjoy full access to the Journal''s website, which features broadcast quality videos of reconstructive and cosmetic procedures, podcasts, comprehensive article archives dating to 1946, and additional benefits offered by the newly-redesigned website.