ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2027
Nerve and Tendon Transfers After Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review of Strength Outcomes in 959 Patients.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2027. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Tendon transfers and nerve transfers are two techniques available for reconstruction of elbow extension, grip, pinch, and release after spinal cord injury. This systematic review was aimed at assessing and comparing the strength outcomes of tendon and nerve transfers for functional reconstruction of the upper extremity to better guide surgical discussion. Methods: This review was registered with PROSPERO ID: CRD42024595503 and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Embase, Scopus, and MEDLINE were queried for citations that presented strength outcomes for patients having undergone tendon and/or nerve transfers to restore upper-extremity function after a spinal cord injury. Weighted averages were used to report patient demographic data. A pooled estimate of strength outcomes was completed for the brachialis-to-anterior interosseous nerve transfer using a random-effects model. Results: Five hundred and ninety-four citations were screened for 51 included studies with a total of 959 patients who were, on average, 31.8 years old (range, 5-76). For elbow extension reconstruction, strength of M3 or greater was reported in 68% of patients who underwent nerve transfers, 79% of patients who underwent a biceps-to-triceps tendon transfer, and 70% of patients who underwent a deltoid-to-triceps transfer. The pooled proportion of patients achieving M3 or better strength after a brachialis-to-anterior interosseous nerve transfer was 0.5 (0.31-0.7), with better outcomes in younger patients. For the supinator-to-posterior interosseous nerve transfer, 78% of patients reported achieving M3 strength or better. Conclusions: There is no gold standard for the functional reconstruction of the upper extremity after a spinal cord injury. The choice of procedure(s) remains patient-specific. Several options are available to surgeons treating tetraplegia, and patients have achieved considerable strength recovery from both nerve and tendon transfers. Current evidence demonstrates poor outcomes after brachialis-to-anterior interosseous nerve transfers. More homogeneous follow-up protocols are needed for strength measurement and patient-reported outcome measures for both nerve and tendon transfers. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic III.
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.