Elsevier

Experimental Neurology

Volume 333, November 2020, 113426
Experimental Neurology

Review article
The evolution of nerve transfers for spinal cord injury

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2020.113426Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Nerve transfers are a powerful intervention for functional recovery following spinal cord injury.

  • Comparison of nerve versus tendon transfers.

  • Role for nerve transfers in the lower body.

  • Future strategies to enhance nerve transfer approaches.

Abstract

Spinal cord injury (SCI) often results in devastating effects on function and quality of life. The majority of SCIs occur in the cervical region with restoration of arm and hand function being the highest priority by patients. Current restoration strategies rely on maximizing and optimally redistributing residual muscle functions that remain under volitional control. The polio epidemic and World Wars led to the development and refinement of tendon transfers, which has long been the standard reconstructive approach for the upper extremity following SCI. However, the past few decades has seen the emergence of nerve transfers from a “salvage” procedure for the management of peripheral nerve injuries, to a powerful reconstructive tool following SCI. Nerve transfers offer distinct advantages over tendon transfers; however, optimal functional recovery frequently benefits from a multi-modality approach and must be tailored to specific injury patterns. Extension of nerve transfers to the lower body presents additional hurdles such as limited donor nerve sources and much longer target distances.

In this review, we will discuss the evolution of nerve transfers for upper extremity reanimation following cervical SCI and discuss advantages over tendon transfers. We will address the progress for nerve transfers to restore lower body function, including ambulation and bladder control. Finally, we will address future efforts in the field. Reconstructive modalities, including nerve and tendon transfers, remain underutilized following SCI and it is important that these therapeutic options are made known to the research community, medical providers, and patients.

Introduction

Clinical functional restoration following spinal cord injury (SCI) has relied on maximizing the function that can be achieved by the myotomes which remain under volitional control. This is seen in its simplest form through the use of orthotic devices that utilize purely mechanical means to enhance grasp and improve hand positioning to provide some degree of independence (Tubbs and Pound, 2019). However, these devices can be cumbersome and bulky and still rely upon a caregiver to don and doff. They certainly do not replace the priority of independent control of the hands.

The polio epidemic of the late 1800s was followed by huge numbers of upper extremity injuries provided by the World Wars (Brown et al., 2012b; Vanaclocha-Vanaclocha et al., 2017). These led to the development and refinement of tendon transfers (Sammer and Chung, 2009), which became the primary surgical intervention to provide functional recovery in the upper extremity. In a tendon transfer procedure, a muscle, that is still well controlled but not critical for function, is repositioned so that it can perform the function of the muscle that no longer works. For example, 3 muscles contribute to elbow flexion – the biceps, brachialis and brachioradialis. Therefore, loss of one of the three muscles is well tolerated. The distal end of the brachioradialis can be repositioned so that it flexes the thumb of a paralyzed hand [Fig. 1]. With this exchange, no appreciable elbow flexion is lost, but the patient is now able to perform a pinch – a critical function to be sure. While these tendon transfer procedures may provide some degree of functional improvement in as many as 70% of the patients with tetraplegia (Khalifeh et al., 2019a, Khalifeh et al., 2019b), they can be somewhat disfiguring, the movement can be unnatural - altering the biomechanics of the limb, and an extended period of immobilization is typically required post-operatively. Such immobilization makes a patient with limited independence become essentially totally dependent for a period of time, which is a primary reason many patients do not opt for these procedures (Brown, 2012).

Nerve transfers employ a similar concept to that of tendon transfers. Instead of moving muscles, a nerve that has retained volitional control is cut and sutured to a nerve that has lost control due to injury [Fig. 2]. The axons from the source nerve then grow and supply the formerly paralyzed muscle, restoring its control. In this case, the original muscle “awakens” to accomplish its original function, restoring essentially normal biomechanics. The “cue” to drive that movement has changed. That is, early on a patient must attempt to perform the action of the “donor nerve” to drive the recovered movement in the target muscle. With practice and plasticity, over time the function becomes relatively normally incorporated. For example, a common nerve transfer used in patients with tetraplegia to restore finger extension is to cut the radial nerve branches that innervate the supinator muscle and suture them to the posterior interosseous nerve which provides finger extension. When these supinator axons reach the finger extensor muscles, the patient will initially have to try to supinate the wrist (rotating the palm towards the ceiling) in order to achieve hand opening. Over time and with practice, central plasticity results in this “supination cue” no longer being required and the movement becomes more natural – that is, eventually the patient simply thinks “open hand” in order to achieve that function.

When the spinal cord is injured, three segments result: the region of the cord that is subjected to the injury – the injured metamere (IM); the normal region rostral to this – the supralesional segment (SLS); and the lesion inferior to this – the infralesional segment(ILS) (Brown, 2012) [Fig. 3]. The IM is the site of direct cord injury and typically includes destruction of the local grey matter, which invariably includes the soma of the spinal lower motor neurons (SMNs) and, consequently, their associated axons within the peripheral nerves that emanate from that segment. Loss of these peripheral axons results in denervation of the target muscle at that level. The consequences of this are underrecognized, but result in a lower motor neuron injury with associated atrophy, fatty degeneration and eventual loss of muscle integrity of those muscles that were the target of that spinal motor neuron (Jonsson et al., 2013; Mandeville et al., 2017). In contrast to this, the ILS has lost volitional control via disconnection from the upper motor neurons (UMNs), but the SMNs within this segment continue to innervate target muscle, thereby maintaining the muscle's integrity and potential for recovery even years later. In a motor complete SCI, the paralyzed muscles of the ILS typically have tone, retained reflexes, and may exhibit “spasms”, but they have no volitional control. It is these axons which, while not providing any volitional control, maintain the distal nerve and muscle integrity. This is what allows for nerve transfers to still be an option years later.

As discussed above, at the IM loss of the SMN soma and associated peripheral axons from the injury site results in a limited time window for recovery of those muscle targets, as degeneration and fibrosis of the distal associated peripheral nerve and muscle will ensue. After this transpires, sending new axons to these targets is typically unsuccessful and movement cannot be restored to these muscles. In the IM, the denervation begins at the time of initial injury, and nerve transfer should be performed within a year to salvage the distal targets, with earlier intervention providing more robust results. As a result, pre-operative planning in patients with tetraplegia requires delineation of the extent and severity of SMN injury contributing to the arm and hand paralysis. If it is extensive and severe, SLS nerves should be transferred to the axon-depleted nerves of the IM region during the window of opportunity in order to recover these targets. After that time has transpired, though, the opportunity to recover these muscles is lost. In contrast, because their targets have axons present (though non-functional), ILS muscles can be recovered with a nerve transfer even very late following the original injury – even decades. In this case, the ILS axons that are only providing tone and spasticity to the paralyzed muscles of the infralesional segment are essentially exchanged for functional and cortical-controlled axons from the SLS via nerve transfer [Fig. 4].

Section snippets

Restorative options for the upper extremity

Both tendon and nerve transfers utilize spared volitionally controlled yet redundant muscles that are of sufficient strength for reassignment to a new, more desired function. Nerve transfers, however, offer distinct advantages over tendon transfers [Table 1]. Some requirements for ideal tendon transfers are a functioning muscle which is immediately adjacent to the missing muscle which, when repositioned, can provide a straight line of pull to the target tendons. With tendon transfers, muscle

Nerve transfers for lower body

Unlike the environment provided by the upper extremity where nerve branches from different root levels are in close proximity, in the lower extremity there are many fewer branches and much longer distances to navigate, making devising good nerve transfers challenging. There are two primary goals to be considered in the patient regarding lower body control: ambulation and bowel/bladder control. While the former has received the most media attention, the latter is consistently rated as a higher

Preservation of distal nerve targets

Degeneration of the distal nerve and muscle due to denervation presents a major barrier for recovery of lower spine lesions of the conus or cauda equina. Even if we could find an adequate axon source to recover the lower extremities via nerve transfers, simply performing the transfer at the required proximal location near the lumbrosacral root origin would render the ultimate result less than optimal given the distance required for these axons to travel. This distance would be measured in feet,

Conclusion

Nerve transfers have evolved to become a powerful intervention for functional restoration following cervical cord injury (Brown et al., 2017). Key principles that result in an effective nerve transfer have been developed through successful implementation in peripheral nerve and brachial plexus repair and have now been demonstrated to also be effective when applied to persons with SCI. The key features of a successful nerve repair: the repair is in close proximity to the target muscle, a pure

Declaration of Competing Interest

There are no competing interests to disclose.

References (98)

  • N. Nagoshi et al.

    Cell therapy for spinal cord injury using induced pluripotent stem cells

    Regen. Ther.

    (2019)
  • C. Oberlin et al.

    Nerve transfer to biceps muscle using a part of ulnar nerve for C5–C6 avulsion of the brachial plexus: Anatomical study and report of four cases

    J. Hand Surg.

    (1994)
  • P.H. Peckham et al.

    Efficacy of an implanted neuroprosthesis for restoring hand grasp in tetraplegia: A multicenter study

    Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.

    (2001)
  • K. Takahashi et al.

    Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors

    Cell

    (2007)
  • N. van Zyl et al.

    Upper limb reinnervation in C6 tetraplegia using a triple nerve transfer: Case report

    J. Hand Surg.

    (2014)
  • N. van Zyl et al.

    Expanding traditional tendon-based techniques with nerve transfers for the restoration of upper limb function in tetraplegia: A prospective case series

    Lancet

    (2019)
  • M. Vilela et al.

    Applications of brain-computer interfaces to the control of robotic and prosthetic arms

  • Z.Z. Wang et al.

    Matrices, scaffolds & carriers for cell delivery in nerve regeneration

    Exp. Neurol.

    (2019)
  • H. Wichterle et al.

    Directed differentiation of embryonic stem cells into motor neurons

    Cell

    (2002)
  • R.D. Wilson et al.

    Neuromodulation for functional electrical stimulation

    Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am.

    (2019)
  • C.-G. Xiao et al.

    An artificial somatic-central nervous system-autonomic reflex pathway for controllable micturition after spinal cord injury: preliminary results in 15 patients

    J. Urol.

    (2003)
  • L. Asboth et al.

    Cortico–reticulo–spinal circuit reorganization enables functional recovery after severe spinal cord contusion

    Nat. Neurosci.

    (2018)
  • P. Assinck et al.

    Cell transplantation therapy for spinal cord injury

    Nat. Neurosci.

    (2017)
  • C.A. Ballance et al.

    REMARKS on the OPERATIVE TREATMENT of CHRONIC FACIAL PALSY of PERIPHERAL ORIGIN

    Br Med J

    (1903)
  • J. Benassy et al.

    A case of transposition of the musculocutaneous nerve on the median nerve

    Ann. Chir. Plast.

    (1966)
  • J.A. Bertelli et al.

    Transfer of supinator motor branches to the posterior interosseous nerve in C7-T1 brachial plexus palsy

    J. Neurosurg.

    (2010)
  • J.A. Bertelli et al.

    Nerve transfers for elbow and finger extension reconstruction in midcervical spinal cord injuries

    JNS

    (2015)
  • J.A. Bertelli et al.

    Transfer of axillary nerve branches to reconstruct elbow extension in tetraplegics: A laboratory investigation of surgical feasibility

    Microsurgery

    (2011)
  • P.S. Bhandari et al.

    Use of contralateral spinal accessory nerve for ipsilateral suprascapular neurotization in global brachial plexus injury: a new technique

    J. Neurosurg. Spine

    (2016)
  • G.S. Brindley

    An implant to empty the bladder or close the urethra

    J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry

    (1977)
  • J.M. Brown

    The reconstructive neurosurgery of spinal cord injury

    (2012)
  • J.M. Brown et al.

    Anatomical feasibility of performing intercostal and ilioinguinal nerve to pelvic nerve transfer: A possible technique to restore lower urinary tract innervation

    J. Neurosurg. Spine

    (2012)
  • J.M. Brown et al.

    Anatomical feasibility of performing a nerve transfer from the femoral branch to bilateral pelvic nerves in a cadaver: A potential method to restore bladder function following proximal spinal cord injury

    J. Neurosurg. Spine

    (2013)
  • J.M. Brown et al.

    Establishing reconstructive neurosurgery as a subspecialty

    Neurosurg. Focus.

    (2017)
  • G.A. Brunelli et al.

    Restoration of walking in paraplegia by transferring the ulnar nerve to the hip: A report on the first patient

    Microsurgery

    (1999)
  • G. Brunelli et al.

    Glutamatergic reinnervation through peripheral nerve graft dictates assembly of glutamatergic synapses at rat skeletal muscle

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

    (2005)
  • J.B. Bryson et al.

    Optical control of muscle function by transplantation of stem cell–derived motor neurons in mice

    Science

    (2014)
  • B. Calancie et al.

    Involuntary stepping after chronic spinal cord injury. Evidence for a central rhythm generator for locomotion in man

    Brain

    (1994)
  • L. Campos

    Engineering novel spinal circuits to promote recovery after spinal injury

    J. Neurosci.

    (2004)
  • L.W. Campos et al.

    Regenerating motor bridge axons refine connections and synapse on lumbar motoneurons to bypass chronic spinal cord injury

    J. Comp. Neurol.

    (2008)
  • H. Cheng et al.

    Spinal cord repair in adult paraplegic rats: Partial restoration of hind limb function

    Science

    (1996)
  • G. Courtine et al.

    Spinal cord repair: Advances in biology and technology

    Nat. Med.

    (2019)
  • G. Courtine et al.

    Recovery of supraspinal control of stepping via indirect propriospinal relay connections after spinal cord injury

    Nat. Med.

    (2008)
  • E. Curtis et al.

    A first-in-human, phase I study of neural stem cell transplantation for chronic spinal cord injury

    Cell Stem Cell

    (2018)
  • S. David et al.

    Axonal elongation into peripheral nervous system “bridges” after central nervous system injury in adult rats

    Science

    (1981)
  • M.R. Dimitrijevic et al.

    Evidence for a spinal central pattern generator in humans

    Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.

    (1998)
  • Z.-W. Du et al.

    Generation and expansion of highly pure motor neuron progenitors from human pluripotent stem cells

    Nat. Commun.

    (2015)
  • C.J. Fowler et al.

    The neural control of micturition

    Nat. Rev. Neurosci.

    (2008)
  • M.L. Gill et al.

    Neuromodulation of lumbosacral spinal networks enables independent stepping after complete paraplegia

    Nat. Med.

    (2018)
  • Cited by (14)

    • Spinal motor neuron transplantation to enhance nerve reconstruction strategies: Towards a cell therapy

      2022, Experimental Neurology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Paralyzing injuries, such as those of peripheral nerves, the brachial plexus (BPI), and the spinal cord (SCI) result in a devastating loss of function and quality of life as well as significant individual and societal financial burden. Rewiring of residual peripheral circuitry through nerve transfers has become a powerful intervention to restore function in such injuries(Bazarek and Brown, 2020; Gordon, 2020; van Zyl et al., 2019). Unfortunately, surgical repair of peripheral nerves has significant limitations, particularly when targets are at a distance or when patients present late after injury.

    • Symptomatic Treatment of Myelopathy

      2024, CONTINUUM Lifelong Learning in Neurology
    • Advances in lower extremity peripheral nerve surgery

      2023, Plastic and Aesthetic Research
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text