Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31861941›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2019

Bionic Upper Limb Reconstruction: A Valuable Alternative in Global Brachial Plexus Avulsion Injuries-A Case Series.

Laura A Hruby, Clemens Gstoettner, Agnes Sturma, Stefan Salminger, Johannes A Mayer, Oskar C Aszmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Prosthetic Fitting Concepts after Major Amputation in the Upper Limb - an Overview of Current Possibilities].Handchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie, plastische Chirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Handchirurgie : Organ der Deutschsprachigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Mikrochirurgie der Peripheren Nerven und Gefasse : Organ der V... · 2024
    Article
  2. A BIONIC HAND VS. A REPLANTED HAND.Journal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Laura A HrubyDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Clemens GstoettnerClinical Laboratory for Bionic Extremity Reconstruction, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-0092-568X
Agnes SturmaClinical Laboratory for Bionic Extremity Reconstruction, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Stefan SalmingerClinical Laboratory for Bionic Extremity Reconstruction, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Johannes A MayerClinical Laboratory for Bionic Extremity Reconstruction, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-0694-8252
Oskar C AszmannClinical Laboratory for Bionic Extremity Reconstruction, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Medical University of Vienna · ATBG Klinik Tübingen · DEImperial College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Global brachial plexopathies including multiple nerve root avulsions may result in complete upper limb paralysis despite surgical treatment. Bionic reconstruction, which includes the elective amputation of the functionless hand and its replacement with a mechatronic device, has been described for the transradial level. Here, we present for the first time that patients with global brachial plexus avulsion injuries and lack of biological shoulder and elbow function benefit from above-elbow amputation and prosthetic rehabilitation. Between 2012 and 2017, forty-five patients with global brachial plexus injuries approached our centre, of which nineteen (42.2%) were treated with bionic reconstruction. While fourteen patients were amputated at the transradial level, the entire upper limb was replaced with a prosthetic arm in a total of five patients. Global upper extremity function before and after bionic arm substitution was assessed using two objective hand function tests, the action research arm test (ARAT), and the Southampton hand assessment procedure (SHAP). Other outcome measures included the DASH questionnaire, VAS to assess deafferentation pain and the SF-36 health survey to evaluate changes in quality of life. Using a hybrid prosthetic arm mean ARAT scores improved from 0.6 ± 1.3 to 11.0 ± 6.7 (

Indexed as

artificial limbsbionicsbrachial plexus injurychronic painnerve root avulsionprostheses and implantsprosthesis fitting

Identifiers

PMID31861941
PMCPMC7019829
OpenAlexW2995411614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.