27: Flexor Carpi Ulnaris–to–Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis Transfer

Published on 19/04/2015 by admin

Filed under Surgery

Last modified 22/04/2025

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 4779 times

Procedure 27 Flexor Carpi Ulnaris–to–Extensor Carpi Radialis Brevis Transfer

Examination/Imaging

Clinical Examination

image Cerebral palsy: The flexion deformity in cerebral palsy can be due to spasticity of the wrist flexors, weak wrist extensors, and/or a volar wrist capsular contracture. It is important to differentiate among these causes. An attempt at overcoming muscle spasticity should be done by applying gentle sustained resistance to the spastic force. If the wrist can be extended passively, it rules out capsular contracture. If the wrist cannot be extended passively, but the wrist flexors do not feel spastic, it suggests a wrist capsular contracture. If the spasticity cannot be overcome, a median and ulnar nerve block at the elbow can temporarily eliminate the flexor spasticity and allow an assessment of active and passive wrist extension. An FCU-to–extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) transfer is indicated in patients who have a spastic FCU and good passive wrist extension (no capsular contracture) but lack active wrist extension. Before considering an FCU-to-ECRB transfer, one must ensure that the patient has the following:

Active digital extension with the wrist held in slight extension. If there is some active digital extension, but it is limited by the tight digit flexors owing to the wrist extension, a concomitant lengthening of the digital flexors will be required (Fig. 27-1). If there is no active digital extension, the patient will need lengthening of the digital flexors and augmentation of digital extension with a long finger FDS-to-EDC transfer.

image Neonatal brachial plexus palsy (NBPP): The ulnar deviation deformity in this group of patients can be due to the FCU or the extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU). Either one of these tendons can be used for obtaining wrist extension depending on the predominant cause of the ulnar deviation deformity. In NBPP, the FCU is passed around the radius to the extensor carpi radialis longus (ECRL) to get some radial balance to the hand at the wrist. In cerebral palsy, the transfer is made around the ulna to the ECRB. This chapter describes the procedure in cerebral palsy.

Procedure

Evidence

Thometz JG, Tachdjian M. Long-term follow-up of the flexor carpi ulnaris transfer in spastic hemiplegic children. J Pediatr Orthop. 1988;8:407-412.

This report is a retrospective study of 25 cerebral palsy patients who underwent FCU transfer to the wrist extensors. The mean follow-up period was 8 years and 1 month. The mean active wrist extension was 44.2 degrees, and the mean flexion was 19.0 degrees. The patients had an effective result except for loss of flexion of the wrist after the operation. (Level IV evidence)

Tonkin M, Gschwind C. Surgery for cerebral palsy. Part 2: flexion deformity of the wrist and fingers. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1992;17:396-400.

The authors performed flexor aponeurotic release, FCU tenotomy, FCU-to–extensor carpi radialis transfer, flexor pronator slide, and proximal row carpectomy in 34 patients with cerebral palsy. They reported that 30 patients were improved functionally and cosmetically. (Level IV evidence)

Wolf TM, Clinkscales CM, Hamlin C. Flexor carpi ulnaris tendon transfer in cerebral palsy. J Hand Surg [Am]. 1998;23:340-343.

In this retrospective study, 16 patients participated in comparison of wrist position, analysis of outcome predictors, and subjective and objective assessment of function after FCU transfer to relieve flexion contracture of the wrist in cerebral palsy. The average follow-up was 4 years; the patients showed improvement in the general resting position, and the center of the arc of motion averaged 6 degrees of pronation and 9 degrees of extension. The authors noted that the most important factor determining the outcome of the operation was the ability of the patient to achieve finger extension. (Level IV evidence)