Posterior versus anterior approach for contralateral C7 nerve transfer in post-stroke upper limb spastic hemiplegia: A comparative retrospective study

卒中后上肢痉挛性偏瘫对侧C7神经移位术中后路入路与前路入路的比较:一项回顾性研究

阅读:3

Abstract

Several surgical approaches for contralateral C7 (CC7) nerve root transfer (NRT) exist, but they come with challenges such as long nerve bridging distances, complex surgical anatomy, and prolonged recovery times. Our objective was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of the posterior single-incision CC7 (PSCC7) NRT approach (posterior group) with the traditional anterior CC7 (ACC7) NRT approach (anterior group) for treating post-stroke upper limb spastic hemiplegia (PULSH). In this retrospective study, we retrieved and compared clinical efficacy as well as safety of the posterior group with the traditional anterior group for treating PULSH between February 2024 and February 2025. Key outcome measures included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, and functional recovery at 6-month follow-up. In all, 12 patients who underwent the posterior group and 30 patients (control group) who underwent the traditional anterior group were retrieved from the hospital records. The posterior group demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (3.2 ± 0.5 hours vs 4.5 ± 0.8 hours, P < .01) and less intraoperative blood loss (150 ± 4 0 mL vs 280 ± 70 mL, P < .01) compared to the anterior group. The posterior group achieved comparable or superior improvements in Modified Ashworth Scale scores (1.2 ± 0.3 vs 1.5 ± 0.4, P > .05) and Berg Balance Scale scores (42 ± 5 vs 39 ± 6, P > .05). The posterior group is a safe and effective treatment for PULSH. It offers the advantages of reduced surgical trauma and shorter operative time.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。