Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42064348›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2026

Nerve transfers for the upper extremity function restoration.

Lukas Rasulić, Andrija Savić, Milan Lepić

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain & spine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Lukas RasulićFaculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Andrija SavićFaculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Milan LepićMedical Faculty of the Military Medical Academy, University of Defence, Belgrade, Serbia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nerve transfers have shifted from "salvage" procedures to a primary, biology-based strategy for restoring priority function after severe peripheral nerve injury, particularly brachial plexus injury. In this invited opinion, we summarize the historical roots of nerve transfer surgery and outline the modern rationale for distal coaptation - shortening regeneration distance, bypassing scarred zones, and directing axons toward functionally critical targets while preserving native biomechanics. We discuss practical donor-recipient selection principles (redundancy, axonal capacity, proximity, and synergy) and contrast proximal versus distal transfer concepts within contemporary reconstructive algorithms. Using representative examples, we emphasize how distal transfers can be integrated with grafting, tendon transfers, or free muscle transfer in staged reconstructions. Based on our clinical experience across elbow, shoulder, and hand reinnervation, we highlight consistently high rates of functionally meaningful recovery and substantial improvements in patient-reported quality of life.

Indexed as

Brachial plexus injuryDistal nerve transferFunctional recoveryNerve transferNeurotizationUpper extremity reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID42064348
PMCPMC13125915

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.