Clinical outcomes report in different brachial plexus injury surgeries: a systematic review

Abstract
Brachial plexus injury is a lesion that results in loss of function of the arm, and there are multiple ways of surgically approaching its treatment. Controlled trials that compare all surgical repair strategies and their clinical outcomes have not been performed. A systematic review was conducted to identify all articles that reported clinical outcomes in different surgeries (nerve transfer, nerve graft, neurolysis, end-to-end, multiple interventions, and others). Advanced search in PubMed was performed using the Mesh terms “brachial plexus injury” as the main topic and “surgery” as a subtopic, obtaining a total of 2153 articles. The clinical data for eligibility extraction was focused on collecting motor, sensory, pain, and functional recovery. A statistical analysis was performed to find the superior surgical techniques in terms of motor recovery, through the assessment of heterogeneity between groups, and of relationships between surgery and motor recovery. The frequency and the manner in which clinical outcomes are recording were described. The differences that correspond to the demographics and procedural factors were not statistically significant among groups (p > 0.05). Neurolysis showed the highest proportion of motor recovery (85.18%), with significant results between preoperative and post-operative motor assessment (p = 0.028). The proportion of motor recovery in each group according to the surgical approach differed significantly (X2 = 82.495, p = 0.0001). The motor outcome was the most reported clinical outcome (97.56%), whereas the other clinical outcomes were reported in less than 15% of the included articles. Unexpectedly, neurolysis, a technique displaced by new surgical alternatives such as nerve transfer/graft, demonstrated the highest proportion of motor recovery. Clinical outcomes such as pain, sensory, and functional recovery were infrequently reported. These results introduce the need to re-evaluate neurolysis through comparative clinical trials, as well as to standardize the way in which clinical outcomes are reported.