ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2027
Revisiting the Original Narakas Classification of Brachial Plexus Birth Injuries.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Accurate classification of brachial plexus birth injury (BPBI) is critical for predicting outcomes and guiding early intervention. In 1987, Narakas introduced the first widely adopted system. Over time, misquotations and reinterpretations have obscured the work, conflating group definitions, exaggerating recovery rates, and misrepresenting prognosis. Methods: This manuscript revisits Narakas' original classification, traces misquotations, and clarifies their impact on management. We aim to provide the original publication as a reliable reference for contemporary care of BPBI. Results: Group 1 involves Sunderland grade 1-2 injuries to C5 and/or C6, with 93% achieving full spontaneous recovery. Group 2 includes Sunderland grade 2-3 injuries to C5-6 and grade 1-2 to C7. Groups 1 and 2 present similarly, with slightly weaker elbow extension in group 2. The key differentiator is slower recovery of the upper trunk, not C7 involvement. Only 22% fully recovered. Group 3 involves Sunderland grades 4-5 for C5-C6, grade 3 for C7, and grades 1-2 for C8-T1. Five percent achieved a full recovery, and 15% had a satisfactory outcome. Group 4 involves Sunderland grade 5 injuries to C5-C7 with avulsion of C8. No patients achieved full or good shoulder recovery, 35% had fair elbow recovery, and hand/wrist recovery was poor. Conclusions: BPBI is complex, with extensive sequelae if mismanaged. Narakas' work provides critical guidance for prognosis and treatment. Misquotations have propagated inaccurate expectations and hindered care. Reprinting and disseminating the original classification and associated group outcomes clarifies prognosis, informs clinical decisions, and supports improved care. Our table and commentary provide an accessible reference to optimize BPBI care. Level of evidence: IV.
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.