ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2024
The comparative efficacy of nerve transfer versus tendon transfer in the management of radial palsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Acta Orthopaedica educational article: Treatment of adult patients with a humeral shaft fracture.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Review
- Technical progress and clinical application of distal nerve transfers.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is no clear census as to which operative technique provides better recovery for radial nerve injuries. Therefore, in this systematic review, we examined the functional recovery, patient-reported outcomes, and complications of tendon transfer (TT) and nerve transfer (NT). Methods: Five electronic databases were searched for studies (>10 cases per study) comparing NT and TT regardless of the study design (observational or experimental). Manual search was also conducted. The quality was assessed by the NIH tool. Outcomes included functional recovery, patient-reported outcomes (DASH score, satisfaction, and inability to return to work), and complications. The prevalence was pooled across studies using STATA software, and then, a subgroup analysis based on the intervention type. Results: Twenty-one studies (542 patients) were analyzed. Excellent recovery, assessed by the Bincaz scale, was higher in the TT group (29 % vs. 11 %) as well as failure to extend the fingers (49 % vs. 9 %). No significant difference was noted between both groups regarding DASH score (mean difference = -2.76; 95 % CI: -12.66: 6.93). Satisfaction was great in the TT group (89 %) with a limited proportion of patients unable to return to work (7 %). Complications were slightly higher in the TT group (8 % vs. 7 %) while 18 % of patients undergoing TT requiring revision surgery. Radial deviation was encountered in 18 % of patients in the TT group and 0 % in the NT group. The quality was good, fair, and poor in 2, 13, and 6, respectively. Conclusions: In radial nerve injuries, although tendon transfer may seem to provide better functional motor recovery than nerve transfer, it is associated with a higher rate of failure to extend the finger. Given the large confidence interval, the accuracy of this finding is questioned. However, a great proportion of those patients require revision surgery afterward. Additionally, tendon transfer is associated with a greater complication rate than nerve transfer, particularly radial deviation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.