Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Plast Surg 2022; 55(04): 331-338
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1760253
Original Article

Correlation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Neurography) and Electrodiagnostic Study Findings with Intraoperative Findings in Post Traumatic Brachial Plexus Palsy

Neehar R. Patel
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Bombay Hospital Institute of Medical Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Anupam B. Takwale 
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Bombay Hospital Institute of Medical Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
K.A Mansukhani
2   Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Bombay Hospital Institute of Medical Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Sunila Jaggi
3   Department of Radiology, Bombay Hospital Institute of Medical Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Mukund R. Thatte
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Bombay Hospital Institute of Medical Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The majority of brachial plexus injuries (BPIs) are caused by trauma; most commonly due to two-wheeler road accidents. It is important to determine whether the lesion in question is pre-ganglionic or post-ganglionic for purposes of surgical planning and prognosis. Diagnostic testing helps the surgeon to not only decide whether surgical intervention is required, but also in planning the procedure, thereby maximizing the patient's chances of early return to function. The aim of the study was to determine the diagnostic efficacy of electrodiagnostic studies (Edx) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) individually, and in unison, in detecting the type and site of BPI by comparison with intraoperative findings (which were used as the reference standard) in patients with posttraumatic BPI.

Methods It is an observational cross-sectional prospective randomized study, wherein 48 patients with BPI underwent a detailed clinical and neurological examination of the upper limb, Edx, MRI neurography and were subsequently operated upon. We assessed a total of 240 roots. The diagnosis of all spinal roots was noted on Edx. MRI was performed to look for root avulsion, pseudomeningocoele, and/or rupture injury. The patients were subsequently operated upon. All roots were traced from infraclavicular level right up to the foramen to ensure continuity of root or note rupture/ avulsion. The findings were tabulated.

Results MRI accurately diagnosed 138 of the 147 injured roots and MRI sensitivity for the detection of BPI was 93.88%, whereas Edx correctly identified 146 out of 147 injured roots and thus, had sensitivity of 99.32%; however, both lacked specificity (18.28 and 20.43%, respectively). With Edx and MRI in unison, sensitivity was 100% which meant that if a given patient with a BPI is subjected to both tests, not a single abnormal root will go unnoticed.

Conclusion Edx and MRI are two highly sensitive investigation modalities whose combined sensitivity is 100% for the detection of a root injury. Therefore, we recommend both tests as they are excellent screening tests.

Keywords

brachial plexus - electrodiagnostic studies - magnetic resonance imaging - sensitivity and specificity - nerve roots


Publication History

Article published online:
22 December 2022

© 2022. Association of Plastic Surgeons of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Synek VM. Somatosensory evoked potentials from musculocutaneous nerve in the diagnosis of brachial plexus injuries. J Neurol Sci 1983; 61 (03) 443-452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Carvalho GA, Nikkhah G, Matthies C, Penkert G, Samii M. Diagnosis of root avulsions in traumatic brachial plexus injuries: value of computerized tomography myelography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 1997; 86 (01) 69-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 O'Shea K, Feinberg JH, Wolfe SW. Imaging and electrodiagnostic work-up of acute adult brachial plexus injuries. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2011; 36 (09) 747-759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Brophy RH, Wolfe SW. Planning brachial plexus surgery: treatment options and priorities. Hand Clin 2005; 21 (01) 47-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Siqueira MG, Martins RS. Surgical treatment of adult traumatic brachial plexus injuries: an overview. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2011; 69 (03) 528-535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Walker AT, Chaloupka JC, de Lotbiniere AC, Wolfe SW, Goldman R, Kier EL. Detection of nerve rootlet avulsion on CT myelography in patients with birth palsy and brachial plexus injury after trauma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167 (05) 1283-1287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Yoshikawa T, Hayashi N, Yamamoto S. et al. Brachial plexus injury: clinical manifestations, conventional imaging findings, and the latest imaging techniques. Radiographics 2006; 26 (Suppl. 01) S133-S143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Leffert RD. Clinical diagnosis, testing, and electromyographic study in brachial plexus traction injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; (237) 24-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ferrante MA. Brachial plexopathies: classification, causes, and consequences. Muscle Nerve 2004; 30 (05) 547-568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sunderland S. Nerves and Nerve Injuries. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1978
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Malessy MJ, Pondaag W, van Dijk JG. Electromyography, nerve action potential, and compound motor action potentials in obstetric brachial plexus lesions: validation in the absence of a “gold standard”. Neurosurgery 2009; 65 (Suppl. 04) A153-A159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gilliatt RW, Sears TA. Sensory nerve action potentials in patients with peripheral nerve lesions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1958; 21 (02) 109-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Terzis JK, Papakonstantinou KC. The surgical treatment of brachial plexus injuries in adults. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106 (05) 1097-1122 , quiz 1123–1124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Terzis JK, Novikov ML. Radiological and electrophysiological detection of nerve roots avulsion in patients with birth-related brachial plexus paralysis. Semin Plast Surg 2005; 19: 24-41
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 15 VanderHave KL, Bovid K, Alpert H, Wan-Chu Chang K, Quint DJ, Leonard Jr JA, Yang LJS. Utility of electrodiagnostic testing and computed tomography myelography in the preoperative evaluation of neonatal brachial plexus palsy. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2012; 9: 283-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gilbert A. Management and results of treating obstetrical palsy in the new-born. Neurochirurgie 2009; 55 (4-5): 427-431
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tagliafico A, Succio G, Serafini G, Martinoli C. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI in adults with suspect brachial plexus lesions: a multicentre retrospective study with surgical findings and clinical follow-up as reference standard. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81 (10) 2666-2672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Blum U, Friedburg HG, Ott D. et al. Traktionsverletzungen des Plexus brachialis: radiologischeDiagnostikmitMyelo-CT und MR. RoFo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed 1989; 151: 702-705
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Doi K, Otsuka K, Okamoto Y, Fujii H, Hattori Y, Baliarsing AS. Cervical nerve root avulsion in brachial plexus injuries: magnetic resonance imaging classification and comparison with myelography and computerized tomography myelography. J Neurosurg 2002; 96 (Suppl. 03) 277-284
    Google Scholar