ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2026
Double Nerve Transfer Versus Triple Nerve Transfer for Elbow Flexion Restoration in C5-C6 Traumatic Brachial Plexus Injuries.
Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This preliminary study compares two nerve transfer techniques for restoring elbow function in patients with C5-C6 brachial plexus injuries. The double nerve transfer (Oberlin II) involves the transfer of fascicles from the ulnar and median nerves to the biceps and brachialis muscles. In contrast, the triple nerve transfer (Oberlin III) includes an additional transfer from the radial nerve to the brachioradialis muscle. Methods: Nine patients with C5-C6 traumatic brachial plexus injuries were included in the study and followed for five years after nerve transfer surgery. Four patients underwent the Oberlin III technique, while five received the Oberlin II procedure. Outcomes assessed included the range of motion in the elbow and shoulder joints, hand grip strength, elbow flexion strength, elbow flexion velocity, and brachioradialis muscle bulk. Results: All patients achieved an MRC grade of 4 for elbow flexion strength. Brachioradialis muscle bulk was recovered in the Oberlin III group, which also demonstrated a higher elbow flexion velocity (P = 0.032). Additionally, higher mean values were observed in the Oberlin III group for elbow flexion strength (in both supination and pronation) and QuickDASH scores. However, no statistically significant differences were found for these outcomes. Conclusion: The Oberlin III technique was associated with the recovery of brachioradialis muscle bulk and improved elbow flexion velocity. These preliminary findings suggest potential functional benefits, highlighting the need for further investigation in larger cohorts.
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.