Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35498818›Full record

ReviewJPRAS open2022

Anterior Interosseous Nerve to Ulnar Nerve Transfer: A Systematic Review.

M Thakkar, A Rose, W King, K Engelman, B Bednarz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JPRAS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Augmentation of the Ulnar Motor Nerve Repair with Anterior Interosseous Nerve in High Ulnar Nerve Palsy: Our Clinical Experience.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
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

5 authors.

M ThakkarDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 84 Castle Street, Glasgow, G4 0SF.
A RoseDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 84 Castle Street, Glasgow, G4 0SF.
W KingDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 84 Castle Street, Glasgow, G4 0SF.
K EngelmanDepartment of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
B BednarzDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, BS10 5NB.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Ulnar nerve injuries, especially high (proximal forearm) injuries, result in poor functional recovery. Peripheral nerve transfers have recently become a popular technique to augment nerve repairs and reduce the reinnervation distance before distal motor endplates irreversibly degenerate, leading to incomplete recovery. Objectives: To systematically review and analyse the recent literature regarding anterior interosseous nerve (AIN) to ulnar nerve transfers, including demographics, indications, outcomes, and complications. Methods: A search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane databases using the keywords ulnar nerve, ulnar nerve injury, ulnar motor nerve, anterior interosseous nerve, anterior interosseous, AIN, nerve transfer, and end-to-side using a 3-component search along with the Boolean operators 'AND' and 'OR'. Results: A total of 341 studies were retrieved using the search criteria. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria including 12 retrospective case series, 3 retrospective cohort studies, and a single randomised control trial. Nine studies involved supercharged end-to-side transfer (SETS), 6 involved end-to-end transfer (ETE), and only 1 study compared results between SETS and ETE transfers. A total of 269 patients underwent nerve transfers. In the ETE subgroup, the average time to nerve transfer was 7 months, with a mean follow-up period of 24.5 months. Post-procedure, 100% (37/37) patients recovered intrinsic function of BMRC ≥1, and the average recovery time was 3.6 months. A total of 85% of patients recovered intrinsic function of BMRC ≥3. In the SETS group, the average time to nerve transfer was 2.5 months. The average follow-up in this cohort was 13.2 months. About 93% (145/156) recovered the intrinsic function of BMRC ≥1, and the average time to recovery was 7 months. About 75% of patients recovered the intrinsic function of BMRC ≥3 in their first dorsal interossei. Conclusion: AIN to ulnar nerve transfer carries low morbidity, and there is low quality evidence to suggest recovery of intrinsic muscle function compared with conventional primary repair techniques. The supercharged end-to-side transfer (SETS) seems to be more favourable compared with end-to-side transfer. Outcome measurements are highly variable amongst studies, making standardisation difficult. Results of further trials are highly anticipated in this exciting field of peripheral nerve surgery.

Indexed as

AINAIN to ulnar nerve transferAnterior interosseous nerveEnd-to-end nerve transferEnd-to-side nerve transferNerve transferSupercharged end-to-side nerve transferUlnar nerveUpper-limb nerve transfer

Identifiers

PMID35498818
PMCPMC9043848

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.