ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Impact of Surgery Timing on Outcomes After Nerve Transfer to Restore Elbow Flexion.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Intraoperative FCU CMAP Amplitude During Oberlin Nerve Transfer: Association with Reinnervation Timing and Functional Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Surgical Outcomes in Non-Transected and Partially Transected Peripheral Nerve Injuries.Brain sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nerve reconstruction following brachial plexus injury (BPI) is a time-sensitive procedure, and surgical delay may negatively impact muscle reinnervation and outcomes. This study investigated the impact of surgical timing on elbow flexion strength in patients with BPI undergoing nerve transfer to restore elbow flexion. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. English-language studies investigating the single fascicular transfer (SFT) or double fascicular transfer (DFT) to restore elbow flexion in BPI were included. Data were analyzed to identify the predictors of elbow flexion strength: surgery timing, age, injury level, and SFT versus DFT. Results: The literature search identified 1051 articles. Studies (n = 31) reporting data of individual patients who underwent SFT (n = 341) or DFT (n = 67) were included; the mean age was 29.6 ± 11.2 years, time from injury to surgery was 6.5 ± 5.0 months, and follow-up was 27.1 ± 24.3 months. Good elbow flexion strength was found: Medical Research Council grade greater than or equal to 3 in 352 (86.3%) and Medical Research Council grade greater than or equal to 4 in 288 (70.6%). In the adjusted analysis, poorer motor recovery was associated with increased age ( Conclusions: SFT and DFT provide excellent elbow flexion strength in the majority of patients. Following nerve transfers in individuals with BPI, poorer motor recovery was observed with each 3-month delay to surgery.
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.