Brachial Plexus Birth Injury: Current Concepts in Its Assessment and Management

Abstract

Brachial plexus birth injury is an uncommon but serious obstetric complication. It follows a highly variable course, with outcomes ranging from mild transient impairment to significant lifelong disability. Infants with brachial plexus birth injuries require careful, regular monitoring to guide decision-making about the treatment and management of the condition. A variety of techniques may be implemented in the conservative management of brachial plexus birth injury. These aim to ensure a full range of motion and to prevent muscle imbalances. Surgical management varies but predominantly involves microsurgical nerve grafting and nerve transfers. This may be followed later by further orthopedic procedures depending on the needs of the patient. Despite the long history of this condition in the medical literature, there continues to be broad variations between the management pathways favored by different treatment centers. International research groups are now working to establish a minimum standard of patient outcome data to facilitate more effective future research on this topic. This article summarizes the current strategies used in the assessment and management of patients with brachial plexus birth injury.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

birth injury / brachial plexus / obstetrical paralysis

1. Introduction

Brachial plexus birth injury (BPBI), also known as obstetric brachial plexus paralysis, is a neurological injury of varying severity caused by forceful traction on the brachial plexus during childbirth. This most commonly occurs due to movement of the head away from the shoulder during shoulder dystocia, stretching the brachial plexus on the ipsilateral side [1]. Infants with BPBI present with immobility in the affected upper limb. In severe cases, this can persist for the rest of their life, even with optimal care [2]. While many infants recover spontaneously, a substantial proportion requires multidisciplinary care. This requires complex decisions about interventions and surgical timing, and the optimal approach can be a contentious issue. All patients with BPBI require therapeutic management to mitigate the risks of glenohumeral dysplasia, muscle imbalance and contracture. This should be accompanied by close monitoring of the infant’s progress [3]. Those who do not demonstrate sufficient spontaneous improvement or show early signs of severe injury may require surgical intervention. Yet, there is considerable variation between regions in the criteria for surgical referral [4]. This may change in the near future with improvements in the consistency of outcome data reporting, which will improve the quality of the available evidence.

Surgical nerve reconstruction utilizes nerve grafts and nerve transfers to reinnervate the muscles of the upper limb and improve function. Historically, nerve grafts have been favored, but recent advances in nerve transfer techniques have increased the popularity of this option [5]. Further research is required to better understand the long-term costs and benefits of each procedure. Surgical intervention may also include orthopedic procedures, such as contracture release and tendon transfer. These interventions can significantly improve shoulder function, and, with further research, it is possible that targeted surgeries could reduce the need for nerve reconstruction [6, 7].

This focused review provides an overview of the available literature on BPBI, highlighting the epidemiological data, prognostic indicators and evolving treatment options. BPBI education for clinicians working with this patient population in hospital settings is essential to ensure the early diagnosis and referral of children with BPBI, optimizing care and outcomes.

2. Pathophysiology

The brachial plexus is comprised of the five nerve roots that emerge from the spinal cord at the C5, C6, C7, C8 and T1 levels. These roots combine into three trunks, with C5 and C6 forming the upper trunk, C7 forming the middle trunk, and C8 and T1 forming the lower trunk. The brachial plexus then redivides further along its path into divisions and cords. Ultimately, it forms into five terminal branches, with contributions from the five nerve roots (C5 to T1) [8] (Fig. 1). The nerves of the brachial plexus provide motor and sensory innervation to the upper limb, including the scapula region [9]. In addition to the five terminal branches, there are numerous preterminal branches, otherwise known as collateral branches. The complex divisions and connections along the course of the brachial plexus contribute to the complexity and variability of BPBI presentation in infants [10].

Although there is some overlap, each trunk of the brachial plexus is broadly responsible for a particular area of function. The upper trunk is primarily responsible for shoulder and elbow movement. The middle trunk innervates the muscles involved in the straightening of the arm (elbow, wrist and finger extension). The lower trunk contributes to wrist movement and innervates the muscles of the fingers, enabling fine motor control [11].

BPBI can be classified according to the level of the brachial plexus injury and the clinical outcome, although these classifications have evolved over the years. The most common type of BPBI is upper brachial plexus palsy (Erb’s palsy). This involves the upper trunk (C5, C6) [12]. Extended Erb’s palsy is classical Erb’s palsy with the additional involvement of C7. Lower brachial plexus palsy (Klumpke’s palsy) involves the lower trunk (C8, T1) [13]. Total brachial plexus palsy, which can co-occur with Horner’s syndrome, is the most severe form of BPBI, with damage to the upper, middle and lower trunks (C5–T1). In 1987, Narakas devised a similar classification system that stratifies BPBI into four groups by level and severity [14]. Group 1 is upper brachial plexus palsy involving C5 and C6. Group 2 is the same as group 1, but with the additional involvement of C7. Groups 3 and 4 are both total brachial plexus palsy, with group 4 having comorbid Horner’s syndrome. Since then, an additional, intermediate palsy group has been described, in which there is partial palsy of the plexus involving C7, with varying degrees of involvement of the upper and lower trunks [15]. Al-Qattan et al. [16] proposed a further division of Narakas group 2 into two subgroups according to whether the infant had the capacity for active wrist extension against gravity by 2 months of age. Infants who demonstrated this early recovery of wrist extension movement have been found to have a significantly higher chance of spontaneous recovery than those who do not. Finally, damage to the four nerve roots C5–C8, named “T1-hand”, has been described by Bertelli and Ghizoni [17].

Further classification of nerve injuries to the brachial plexus divides the injury types into preganglionic and postganglionic lesions, depending on whether the lesion is proximal (preganglionic) or distal (postganglionic) to the dorsal nerve root ganglion. This distinction is important for surgical planning as preganglionic lesions involve avulsion of the nerve root, and the patient is much less likely to show spontaneous recovery of function. Seddon classified postganglionic nerve injuries by severity [18]. The first and most severe type is neurotmesis, in which there is a complete physiological interruption of the communication pathway along the nerve. This degree of damage precludes spontaneous recovery. Axonotmesis is damage to the nerve fibers that, untreated, would lead to peripheral degeneration and loss of function. Patients with this postganglionic severity classification retain the capacity for spontaneous recovery, with varying degrees of functional improvement, provided the nerve’s supporting structures are preserved. The third type of postganglionic brachial plexus nerve injury is neuropraxia, in which there is loss of nerve function but no peripheral degeneration. In these cases, there is invariably full recovery.

3. Causes

BPBI is one of the most common forms of birth trauma with an incidence of around 0.8–1.5 cases per 1000 live births [19, 20, 21, 22]. Shoulder dystocia is the most significant risk factor for BPBI, with an odds ratio of 116, indicating an approximate 10% risk of BPBI in infants who suffer shoulder dystocia [19, 23]. This is concordant with the mechanism by which BPBI is thought to occur, as shoulder dystocia would cause lateral traction to pull the delivered head away from the obstructed shoulder. Other risk factors for BPBI include forceps or vacuum-assisted delivery and macrosomia. However, they carry a much smaller degree of risk than shoulder dystocia [19, 23]. Conversely, delivery by cesarean section and multiple pregnancies are protective factors that reduce the risk of BPBI [22]. When the mother has previously given birth to infants with shoulder dystocia or BPBI, the odds ratios for BPBI are 5 and 17, respectively. With such women, the physician should discuss delivery plans for future pregnancies, with these risk factors in mind [24].

Over the past decade, several studies have identified a decrease in the incidence of BPBI. This is thought to be associated with corresponding increases in cesarean delivery rates and multiple pregnancies, along with decreasing rates of exceptionally large babies (>4500 g) and forceps deliveries [19, 21, 22, 23, 24]. Yet, paradoxically, the reported rates of shoulder dystocia are increasing, even among populations with stable or decreasing rates of BPBI [25, 26]. This change is likely driven by improved awareness and training in the management of shoulder dystocia among medical professionals. Increased recognition of shoulder dystocia when it occurs increases reported occurrences, while also reducing the chance of BPBI [27]. Previous under-reporting of shoulder dystocia could also explain the prevalence of cases of BPBI in which there were no apparent risk factors [28].

4. Assessment

Brachial plexus injury is often apparent very shortly after birth due to significantly reduced movement in the affected upper limb. Clinical examination and a detailed history from the mother should then be performed to identify any risk factors for BPBI and better characterize the symptoms.

Observation alone can sometimes be sufficient for BPBI classification, as particular lesions are associated with particular presentations. For example, the “waiter’s tip position” indicates upper brachial plexus palsy. This involves internal rotation and adduction of the shoulder, and extension and pronation of the radioulnar joint due to insult at the C5 and C6 levels. If there is concurrent wrist flexion, then the injury is more severe, involving C7 and sometimes C8 [29]. Lower brachial plexus palsy (Klumpke’s palsy) can be inferred from a clawed hand deformity, which involves wrist extension, metacarpophalangeal hyperextension and interphalangeal flexion. If the child has total brachial plexus palsy, they will typically present with a flaccid, paralyzed arm [30].

Fig. 2 illustrates clawed-hand deformity and waiter’s tip deformity of the hand with wrist flexion. T1-hand is associated with palsies affecting shoulder abduction and external rotation (ER); elbow flexion and extension; and wrist, finger and thumb extension [17]. The affected arm is largely paralyzed, but wrist and finger flexion are preserved.

Passive range of motion (ROM) should be assessed at all consultations with a BPBI infant. This should be normal [11]. If passive ROM is restricted in a BPBI infant, then differential diagnoses should be considered. Namely, arthrogryposis is likely if bilateral restriction is present; and tumor, infection or trauma if there is unilateral restriction [29, 31].

Active movement of the limb can be assessed in infants through observation and play, and by testing the primitive reflexes. These reflexes provide a consistent assessment of motor response in the affected limb. For example, an abnormal Moro reflex may reveal a deficit in shoulder abduction in the affected limb. When this is present alongside a normal grasp reflex, it can indicate an upper brachial plexus injury [30]. Table 1 (Ref. [32]) describes the primitive reflexes and their relevance to BPBI.

The Active Movement Scale (AMS) and the Toronto Test Score (TTS) are common tools used by clinicians to assess patients with BPBI through the quantification of upper extremity function. Both scales have good intra-operator reliability and effectively predict the need for referral for surgical management [33, 34, 35]. The AMS assesses 15 different active movements of the upper limb and grades the range of motion on a scale of 0 to 7. Scores of 0 to 4 represent movement without gravitational resistance, and 5 to 7, movement against gravity. The TTS assesses five movements on a seven-point scale. The combined scores for each item are converted to an overall score between 0 and 2.

In the initial assessment of an infant with BPBI, it is important to look for signs of Horner’s syndrome (unilateral ptosis, miosis and anhidrosis) as its presence is likely to reflect more severe neuronal injury. It has been suggested that the presence of Horner’s syndrome combined with disruption of the cephalic sympathetic chain at T1 indicates that an avulsion-type injury is responsible for the brachial plexus palsy. Classically, the co-occurrence of BPBI and Horner’s syndrome has been associated with a lower chance of spontaneous recovery than that in BPBI without Horner’s syndrome. However, this has been disputed [14, 36, 37, 38]. Murine studies have demonstrated potential communication between the C7 nerve root and the superior cervical ganglion during infancy. If correct, this would indicate an additional mechanism through which Horner’s syndrome could co-occur with BPBI that differs from that responsible for adult brachial plexopathy [39]. Further work on the association between Horner’s syndrome and avulsion-type injuries is required. A similar mechanism, leading to an association between BPBI and phrenic nerve palsy, has also been proposed. In infants with total brachial plexus palsy, it is important to screen for phrenic nerve palsy as it can lead to diaphragmatic paralysis or dysfunction. If the child presents with respiratory distress and asymmetrical thorax elevation, a high index of suspicion is required. With abnormal hemidiaphragm elevation suggestive of phrenic nerve palsy, chest X-ray should be the first line of investigation. Bedside ultrasound is also a useful means of visualizing diaphragmatic movements [40]. As with Horner’s syndrome, there is conflicting evidence relating to the effect concurrent phrenic nerve palsy has on the likelihood of spontaneous recovery in infants with BPBI [41, 42].

Clavicle and humeral shaft fractures can occur in BPBI, so all affected infants should be examined for signs of concurrent fracture during their initial assessment [20, 43, 44]. If a fracture is suspected, then X-ray imaging is indicated to confirm the diagnosis. Neonatal clavicular and humeral fractures can be conservatively managed with excellent long-term outcomes. Parents should be advised to avoid infant movement and minimize the time they spend lying on the affected side. However, there is no expectation of cosmetic or functional deficits associated with these fractures [45].

When assessing a newborn with suspected BPBI, it is crucial to assess for differential diagnoses. Ipsilateral lower limb weakness with hyperreflexia can be more suggestive of hemiplegia secondary to a central nervous system pathology such as cerebral palsy, stroke or brain tumor. Widespread generalized weakness can indicate a neuromuscular pathology such as spinal muscular atrophy or muscular dystrophy. If both upper limbs are affected, then imaging may be necessary to rule out a spinal cord lesion, especially if there is also respiratory distress [46].

Radiological assessment can be used for earlier identification of the need for surgery than can be achieved by clinical examination alone. While surgical exploration is the standard for identifying nerve root avulsions, it is the most invasive option. Computed tomography (CT) myelography is considered the gold standard for radiological assessment of nerve root integrity. It has demonstrated a sensitivity of 72.2% for preganglionic nerve root avulsions [47]. Magnetic resonance imaging is a promising alternative. It has a similar sensitivity for the detection of nerve root avulsions to CT but does not require sedation, lumbar puncture or radiation exposure [48, 49, 50]. Electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction studies can be used to identify severe forms of BPBI. This facilitates earlier surgical management in cases that require it [51]. Nonetheless, the utility of electrodiagnostic studies in this patient population is controversial due to concerns that studies of EMG use have been overly optimistic in their interpretations of the value of this approach [52]. As a result, some centers do not use the technique during pre-operative assessments [53]. When EMG is used, the evidence suggests that the infant’s age at the time of testing is crucial to the accuracy of the results, with 1 month being the optimum age. It has also been shown to most usefully guide surgical planning when used in conjunction with clinical assessments and imaging [54, 55].

In the UK, there is no centralized National Health Service (NHS) guidance on the timelines for brachial plexus injury assessment and management. Therefore, this is determined by individual centers based on the resources available. However, organizations such as Plexus Nexus have been working to establish international consensus on best practices with BPBI. An example of the kind of timeline-related regulations needed is the importance of patient referral to specialist brachial plexus services in the first 2 months of life if there are persistent deficits in upper limb function [56]. Fig. 3 (Ref. [53, 57]) presents a flowchart illustrating a potential assessment and management strategy for BPBI. It is based on information from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and published guidance from the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists. The figure highlights the flexibility required among healthcare professionals, based on the progression of the patient and the importance of continual therapeutic input.

The current lack of standardization of outcome measures between centers is an obstacle to the production of high-level evidence for or against specific practices in BPBI management. iPluto (the International Plexus Outcome Study Group) have connected BPBI centers across the world to establish a minimum standard for outcome measures. The ultimate goal of this is to ensure the quality of future research. Thus far, consensus has been reached between the centers on four key assessment points during patient follow-up [58].

(1) Evaluations should take place when the child is aged 1, 3, 5, and 7 years;

(2) The patient’s passive range of motion should be measured in degrees;

(3) The patient’s active range of motion should be measured in degrees;

(4) The Mallet score of every patient should be calculated at each assessment.

More recently, consensus has also been reached on the value of patient-reported outcome measures, but there is no consensus as yet on the specific measures that should be used [59].

5. Management

5.1 Conservative Management

There is no consensus on the optimal management of BPBI as centers around the world follow different treatment pathways, adopt different management techniques and use different outcome measures [58]. However, there are common practices that can be discussed, and evidence for individual interventions in the management of BPBI is available. During the patient’s journey to recovery, they may receive care from hand surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, nurses, psychologists and social workers. Therefore, it is important for each center to have an established pathway from assessment to treatment and follow-up. There must also be good interdisciplinary communication and effective service evaluations [53].

To accurately predict prognosis and guide surgical planning, it is essential to perform serial assessments alongside therapeutic interventions. However, the point at which surgical intervention is indicated is determined differently between centers [4]. In patients with upper brachial plexus palsy, spontaneous recovery is likely, so these patients may be managed conservatively. The need for surgery depends on whether or not the infant is showing signs of upper limb function recovery. A typical treatment course includes regular assessment of the presence and degree of ongoing impairment of the upper limb over the first 6 months. This is a good indicator of the likelihood of spontaneous recovery. Findings suggestive of severe injury, such as total brachial plexus palsy or Horner’s syndrome, will usually prompt consideration of earlier surgical treatment (before 3 months) [53]. Due to the rarity of BPBI and the heterogeneity of outcome measures, the quality of current evidence for best practices is low, and differences persist between regions in the age at which surgery is performed in these patients [4].

During the initial rehabilitation of the affected limb in infants with BPBI, the primary goals are the prevention of muscle contracture and deformity, and maximization of strength and development. In the first 2 weeks of life, therapy is limited to allow tenderness from the injury to subside. Instead, caregivers are encouraged to focus on promoting sensory awareness in the affected arm by playing with the child’s hand and placing it in their line of sight. In the next therapeutic stage, the focus is on passive range of motion exercises. These are to be completed frequently at home, with the support and supervision of a hospital therapy team.

Given the risk of glenohumeral dysplasia, particular care needs to be taken to promote normal growth of the shoulder. Abnormalities in glenohumeral development have been noted in infants as young as 3 months old and have been associated with greater degrees of muscle imbalance [60]. Splinting can be used to mitigate the risk of glenohumeral dysplasia. The supination-external rotation (Sup-ER) splint is a novel orthotic device designed to comfortably hold the affected upper limb in a position that maintains glenohumeral congruity, while lengthening the muscles most susceptible to contracture [61]. The name is derived from the supination (Sup) of the radioulnar joint and the external rotation (ER) of the shoulder when the orthosis is applied (Sup-ER). This splint holds the limb in the normal anatomical position of the shoulder during growth, reducing the risk of complications developing during the natural recovery of neurological function. The Sup-ER splint has been shown to improve shoulder rotation functional outcomes in patients with severe BPBI [62]. Alternatively, some centers utilize a ‘teapot’ brace [63, 64]. It has been argued that the teapot results in better control of external rotation as the elbow is not extended. However, further research comparing the two techniques is required. The Sup-ER splint is illustrated in Fig. 4 and the teapot splint in Fig. 5.

Posterior shoulder subluxation is more common in all patients with BPBI [65]. An important aspect of the ongoing monitoring of patients with BPBI is regular assessment of the glenohumeral joint. Ultrasound screening can be used to effectively screen for patients with early shoulder complications. Examination findings, such as reduced passive external rotation, can be used adjunctively to determine which infants are most at risk of shoulder complications. Bauer et al. [65] have proposed a cut-off of \le60° of external rotation. They found this to yield a sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 69% for posterior dislocation detection.

Botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT-A) injections can be used as an adjunct to therapy and may delay or avoid the need for secondary musculoskeletal surgery entirely. BoNT-A appears to facilitate more effective rehabilitation through the correction of muscle imbalances. This is achieved through the inhibition of neuromuscular transmission in the stronger, unaffected, antagonist muscles of the upper limb, which leads to strengthening of the weaker, agonist muscles [66]. Additionally, BoNT-A injections have been found to facilitate motor learning in infants and to increase plasticity in sensorimotor circuits [67]. There is ongoing research into the long-term efficacy of BoNT-A injections; however, several studies have found that their beneficial effects are not sustained over time [68, 69]. Long-term positive outcomes are more likely in younger patients, who have a greater degree of neuroplasticity [70].

Serial casting and splinting as components of constraint-induced movement therapy are effective treatments for BPBI [71]. Muscle weakness in the affected arm can cause the child to preferentially use the unaffected limb in their daily activities. This can limit neurodevelopment in the affected limb, even after recovery from the brachial plexus palsy. The constraint of movement in the unaffected limb with a dynamic splint or cast is a technique originally developed to treat hemiparesis secondary to stroke. However, it has been shown to increase use of the affected limb and improve BPBI outcomes [72, 73, 74].

The use of virtual reality technology with robotic assistance devices can assist in stimulating an affected limb. This has been shown to improve infant engagement with rehabilitation tasks, ultimately leading to an improved range of movement in the upper limb [75]. A combination of early range of motion exercises, screening for glenohumeral dysplasia, BoNT-A injections and splinting have been shown to have a significant impact on the eventual shoulder function of infants with BPBI [76].

5.2 Surgical Management

As with therapeutic management, there is no strict consensus on which patients should undergo surgery and which procedures are most appropriate. This is an exciting area of research, and studies comparing treatment strategies are regularly published. This is aided by projects such as iPluto, which aim to establish a minimum standard for follow-up assessments [58, 77, 78].

The key principle in effective surgical decision-making is to identify those patients with better chances of postoperative recovery than recovery following a conservative approach. For this reason, early surgical referral is indicated in patients with total brachial plexus palsy, as meaningful spontaneous recovery is highly unlikely [79]. Unfortunately, difficulties can arise when assessing the need for surgical intervention in patients with upper brachial plexus palsy, as the clinical signs are less distinctive. It is well established that a lack of recovery of biceps function (i.e., active movement against gravity) by 3 months predicts poor spontaneous recovery and indicates the need for surgical referral [80, 81, 82]. More recently, researchers at a surgical center developed an algorithm that uses maternal and neonatal factors (such as birth weight and delivery method) to predict the risk of persistent BPBI before surgical intervention [83]. The exact criteria for surgical referral vary between sites. However, they often involve the use of assessment tools such as the AMS or TTS as well as serial examination of upper limb function. With improved communication between sites and the standardization of outcome measures, high-quality evidence of best practices may emerge.

Once the decision to perform surgery has been made, it is then necessary to determine the most appropriate procedure. As with many aspects of BPBI, this is a dynamic area of discussion, but the two main modalities of treatment are nerve grafts and nerve transfers. Historically, nerve grafts have been the gold standard and the primary surgical treatment for BPBI. However, recent advances in nerve transfer techniques have led more centers to adopt this treatment modality. Evidence for its efficacy continues to accumulate [5, 84]. It is worth noting that previous research has found no useful role for neurolysis alone in the treatment of BPBI [85].

Nerve grafts require excision of the neuroma until viable fascicles become accessible. Then, a donor nerve, usually the sural nerve, is used to provide a scaffold upon which to reinnervation between the proximal and distal nerve stumps [86, 87]. During nerve transfer, a donor nerve is divided distally, keeping the nerve root intact. The donor nerve is then coapted to the denervated brachial plexus nerve and, where possible, primary repair is performed [88]. The pros and cons of nerve grafts and transfers are summarized in Table 2 (Ref. [5, 84, 86, 89]).

Early studies suggest that nerve transfer results in a greater degree of external rotation in the shoulder. However, direct comparisons between surgical techniques have been hindered by differing outcome measures and low-quality evidence [89]. Some authors have expressed concern that donor site morbidity in the growing patient, specifically in nerve transfers, may currently be underreported [90]. Therefore, definitive conclusions about the superiority of either technique are not yet possible. It may be that maximal innervation is best achieved using both nerve grafts and nerve transfers [5].

In addition to primary microsurgery, secondary surgery can be used to treat specific sequelae of BPBI. The requirements for these procedures are tailored to the needs of the patient, and take account of their hobbies, school or work requirements and personal care needs. Tendon transfer is one such surgical method, whereby a functional muscle is transferred to the site of a paralyzed muscle to improve the joint functionality. This procedure can be performed independently or with the concomitant release of an impaired muscle. For example, if there is an internal rotation contracture, release of the subscapularis could be performed concurrently with the transfer of the latissimus dorsi and teres major. The procedure performed will depend on the extent of the neurological injury and the potential for bone remodeling [91]. Functional improvement in the shoulder is largely due to reorientation of the arc of rotation, with diminished internal rotation in exchange for greatly improved external rotation [92]. Despite this, contracture release and muscle tendon transfer have the potential to significantly improve global shoulder function and quality of life [7]. Although traditionally, secondary orthopedic procedures take place after primary nerve reconstruction, a recent study explored the possibility that targeted surgical treatment of the shoulder could remove the need for nerve surgery. While this idea was just presented in a proof-of-concept study of a highly selected group of infants, it suggests a possible direction in the future evolution of shoulder surgery for BPBI [6].

6. Conclusion

BPBI is a significant burden on healthcare systems, the affected patients and their parents. It requires close monitoring and thorough assessment to ensure optimal treatment and management decisions. Numerous innovative treatments and strategies have been developed for the therapeutic and surgical management of this condition. Therefore, it is incumbent upon healthcare services involved with this patient population to stay abreast of new approaches to ensure their patients have the best chance of recovery. There remains a great deal of variability in management pathways between centers, and studies comparing the efficacy of treatment strategies have been hindered by their adoption of inconsistent assessment parameters. However, resolution of this issue is expected in the near future due to current efforts to introduce minimum standardized outcome assessment methods for widespread application. Also, despite the lack of standardized guidelines, individual centers have contributed some promising treatment innovations, and the evidence for their efficacy is accumulating.

Key Points

• The significant variability in prognosis and difficulty predicting the course of brachial plexus birth injury necessitates close monitoring of affected infants and personalized treatment plans.

• Therapeutic interventions are necessary for optimal care of infants with brachial plexus birth injury to reduce the risk of muscle imbalances and improve long-term functioning.

• In severe cases of brachial plexus birth injury, surgical intervention can significantly improve functional outcomes, but there is no consensus on which surgical interventions are most efficacious.

• High-quality research comparing treatment strategies for brachial plexus birth injury has been hindered by the heterogeneity of assessment tools and timelines between studies.

• Efforts are currently being made to establish minimum standards for outcome reporting in studies of brachial plexus birth injury, to improve the quality of future research.

Availability of Data and Materials

Not applicable.

References

[1] Kay S, McCombe D, Wilks D. Brachial plexus injury in the child. In Kay S, McCombe D, Wilks D (eds.) Oxford Textbook of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Oxford University Press: Oxford. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199682874.003.0040.

[2] Dorich JM, Whiting J, Plano Clark VL, Ittenbach RF, Cornwall R. Impact of brachial plexus birth injury on health-related quality of life in adulthood: a mixed methods survey study. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2024; 46: 2042–2055. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2023.2212917.

[3] Li H, Chen J, Wang J, Zhang T, Chen Z. Review of rehabilitation protocols for brachial plexus injury. Frontiers in Neurology. 2023; 14: 1084223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2023.1084223.

[4] Levidy MF, Azer A, Shafei J, Srinivasan N, Mahajan J, Gupta S, et al. Global trends in surgical approach to neonatal brachial plexus palsy: a systematic review. Frontiers in Surgery. 2025; 11: 1359719. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1359719.

[5] Malungpaishrope K, Kittithamvongs P, Tie J. Nerve Grafting and Nerve Transfer in Incomplete Brachial Plexus Birth Injury: A Systematic Review. The Journal of Hand Surgery (Asian-Pacific Volume). 2025; 30: 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424835525500596.

[6] Domeshek LF, Zuo KJ, Letourneau S, Klar K, Anthony A, Ho ES, et al. Surgery for internal rotation contracture in infancy may obviate the need for brachial plexus nerve reconstruction: early experience. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2024; 33: 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2023.06.016.

[7] Al Muhtaseb T, Lamer S, Allgier A, Miller MA, Little KJ, Mehlman CT, et al. Surgical Treatment of Infantile Shoulder Dislocation Following Brachial Plexus Birth Injury. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics. 2025; 45: e724–e732. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000002977.

[8] Polcaro L, Charlick M, Daly DT. Anatomy, head and neck: brachial plexus. 2023. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK531473/ (Accessed: 17 July 2025).

[9] Felten DL, O’Banion MK, Maida MS. Peripheral nervous system. In Felten DL, O’Banion MK, Maida MS (eds.) Netter’s atlas of neuroscience (pp. 153–231). 3rd edn. Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-26511-9.00009-6.

[10] Bayot M L, Nassereddin A, Varacallo M A. Anatomy, Shoulder and Upper Limb, Brachial Plexus. StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island (FL). 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK500016/

[11] O’Berry P, Brown M, Phillips L, Evans SH. Obstetrical Brachial Plexus Palsy. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care. 2017; 47: 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2017.06.003.

[12] Erb W. Ueber eine eigenthumliche Localization von Lahmungen in Plexus Brachialis. Verhandlungen des Naturhistorisch-Medizinischen Vereins zu Heidelberg. 1874; 130–161.

[13] Klumpke A. Contribution à l’étude des paralysies radiculaires du plexus brachial. Revue Médicale (Paris). 1885; 5: 591–790. (In France)

[14] Narakas AO. Obstetrical brachial plexus injuries. In Lamb DW (ed.) The paralyzed hand (pp. 116–135). 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh. 1987.

[15] Brunelli GA, Brunelli GR. A fourth type of brachial plexus lesion: the intermediate (C7) palsy. Journal of Hand Surgery (British Volume). 1991; 16: 492–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-7681(91)90101-s.

[16] Al-Qattan MM, El-Sayed AAF, Al-Zahrani AY, Al-Mutairi SA, Al-Harbi MS, Al-Mutairi AM, et al. Narakas classification of obstetric brachial plexus palsy revisited. The Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2009; 34: 788–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193409348185.

[17] Bertelli JA, Ghizoni MF. C5-8 brachial plexus root injury: the “T-1 hand”. Journal of Neurosurgery. 2012; 116: 409–413. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.7.JNS11672.

[18] Seddon HJ. Three types of nerve injury. Brain. 1943; 66: 237–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/66.4.237.

[19] Abzug JM, Mehlman CT, Ying J. Assessment of Current Epidemiology and Risk Factors Surrounding Brachial Plexus Birth Palsy. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2019; 44: 515.e1–515.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.07.020.

[20] Gandhi RA, DeFrancesco CJ, Shah AS. The Association of Clavicle Fracture With Brachial Plexus Birth Palsy. The Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume). 2019; 44: 467–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.11.006.

[21] Gupta R, Cabacungan ET. Neonatal Birth Trauma: Analysis of Yearly Trends, Risk Factors, and Outcomes. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2021; 238: 174–180.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.06.080.

[22] DeFrancesco CJ, Mahon SJ, Desai VM, Pehnke M, Manske MC, Shah AS. Epidemiology of Brachial Plexus Birth Injury and the Impact of Cesarean Section on Its Incidence. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics. 2025; 45: 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000002800.

[23] Van der Looven R, Le Roy L, Tanghe E, Samijn B, Roets E, Pauwels N, et al. Risk factors for neonatal brachial plexus palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2020; 62: 673–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.14381.

[24] Manske MC, Wilson MD, Wise BL, James MA, Melnikow J, Hedriana HL, et al. Association of Parity and Previous Birth Outcome With Brachial Plexus Birth Injury Risk. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2023; 142: 1217–1225. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005394.

[25] Heinonen K, Saisto T, Gissler M, Kaijomaa M, Sarvilinna N. Rising trends in the incidence of shoulder dystocia and development of a novel shoulder dystocia risk score tool: a nationwide population-based study of 800 484 Finnish deliveries. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2021; 100: 538–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14022.

[26] Mollberg M, Ladfors LV, Strömbeck C, Elden H, Ladfors L. Increased incidence of shoulder dystocia but a declining incidence of obstetric brachial plexus palsy in vaginally delivered infants. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2023; 102: 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14481.

[27] Kaijomaa M, Gissler M, Äyräs O, Sten A, Grahn P. Impact of simulation training on the management of shoulder dystocia and incidence of permanent brachial plexus birth injury: An observational study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2023; 130: 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17278.

[28] Chauhan SP, Blackwell SB, Ananth CV. Neonatal brachial plexus palsy: incidence, prevalence, and temporal trends. Seminars in Perinatology. 2014; 38: 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2014.04.007.

[29] Shah V, Coroneos CJ, Ng E. The evaluation and management of neonatal brachial plexus palsy. Paediatrics & Child Health. 2021; 26: 493–497. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/pxab083.

[30] Flaugh R, Orellana KJ, Shah AS. Pediatrics Tips & Tricks: Essentials of the brachial plexus physical examination in newborns. University of Pennsylvania Orthopaedic Journal. 2023; 33: 87–90.

[31] Yong CPC, Puhaindran ME, Das De S. Differential Diagnoses of Pediatric Upper Limb Masses. The Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume). 2022; 47: 685.e1–685.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.06.010.

[32] Payares-Lizano M, Pino C. Pediatric Orthopedic Examination. Pediatric Clinics of North America. 2020; 67: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2019.09.004.

[33] Curtis C, Stephens D, Clarke HM, Andrews D. The active movement scale: an evaluative tool for infants with obstetrical brachial plexus palsy. The Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume). 2002; 27: 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1053/jhsu.2002.32965.

[34] Bae DS, Waters PM, Zurakowski D. Reliability of three classification systems measuring active motion in brachial plexus birth palsy. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). 2003; 85: 1733–1738. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200309000-00012.

[35] Glenney AE, Zhang C, Mehta M, Comerci A, Liu H, Moroni EA, et al. Active Movement Scale scores impact surgical decision-making in perinatal brachial plexus palsy. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery–Global Open. 2024; 12: 26. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.GOX.0001015240.71781.f0.

[36] Gosk J, Koszewicz M, Urban M, Wnukiewicz W, Wiace R, Rutowski R. Assessment of the prognostic value of horner syndrome in perinatal brachial plexus palsy. Neuropediatrics. 2011; 42: 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1273719.

[37] El-Sayed AAF. The prognostic value of concurrent Horner syndrome in extended Erb obstetric brachial plexus palsy. Journal of Child Neurology. 2014; 29: 1356–1359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0883073813516195.

[38] Yoshida K, Kawabata H. The prognostic value of concurrent Horner syndrome in surgical decision making at 3 months in total-type neonatal brachial plexus palsy. The Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2018; 43: 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193418774265.

[39] Huang YG, Chen L, Gu YD, Yu GR. Sympathetic preganglionic neurons project to superior cervical ganglion via C7 spinal nerve in pup but not in adult rats. Autonomic Neuroscience: Basic & Clinical. 2010; 154: 54–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autneu.2009.11.004.

[40] Gerard-Castaing N, Perrin T, Ohlmann C, Mainguy C, Coutier L, Buchs C, et al. Diaphragmatic paralysis in young children: A literature review. Pediatric Pulmonology. 2019; 54: 1367–1373. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.24383.

[41] Bowerson M, Nelson VS, Yang LJS. Diaphragmatic paralysis associated with neonatal brachial plexus palsy. Pediatric Neurology. 2010; 42: 234–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2009.11.005.

[42] Yoshida K, Kawabata H. The prognostic value of concurrent phrenic nerve palsy in newborn babies with neonatal brachial plexus palsy. The Journal of Hand Surgery (American Volume). 2015; 40: 1166–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.01.039.

[43] Yenigül AE, Yenigül NN, Başer E, Özelçi R. A retrospective analysis of risk factors for clavicle fractures in newborns with shoulder dystocia and brachial plexus injury: A single-center experience. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica. 2020; 54: 609–613. https://doi.org/10.5152/j.aott.2020.19180.

[44] von Heideken J, Thiblin I, Högberg U. The epidemiology of infant shaft fractures of femur or humerus by incidence, birth, accidents, and other causes. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2020; 21: 840. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03856-4.

[45] McDonald TC, Higdon CL, Cutchen WA. Neonatal Birth Fractures. Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America. 2024; 9: 100131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jposna.2024.100131.

[46] Lee CC, Chou IJ, Chang YJ, Chiang MC. Unusual Presentations of Birth Related Cervical Spinal Cord Injury. Frontiers in Pediatrics. 2020; 8: 514. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00514.

[47] Vanderhave KL, Bovid K, Alpert H, Chang KWC, Quint DJ, Leonard JA, Jr, et al. Utility of electrodiagnostic testing and computed tomography myelography in the preoperative evaluation of neonatal brachial plexus palsy. Journal of Neurosurgery. Pediatrics. 2012; 9: 283–289. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.12.PEDS11416.

[48] Girard AO, Suresh V, Lopez CD, Seal SM, Tuffaha SH, Redett RJ, et al. Radiographic imaging modalities for perinatal brachial plexus palsy: a systematic review. Child’s Nervous System. 2022; 38: 1241–1258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-022-05538-z.

[49] Patel NR, Takwale AB, Mansukhani KA, Jaggi S, Thatte MR. Correlation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Neurography) and Electrodiagnostic Study Findings with Intraoperative Findings in Post Traumatic Brachial Plexus Palsy. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery. 2022; 55: 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1760253.

[50] Brooks J, Hardie C, Wade R, Teh I, Bourke G. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting nerve injury in brachial plexus birth injury. The British Journal of Radiology. 2025; 98: 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjr/tqae214.

[51] Orozco V, Balasubramanian S, Singh A. A Systematic Review of the Electrodiagnostic Assessment of Neonatal Brachial Plexus. Neurology and Neurobiology. 2020; 3: 10.31487/j.nnb.2020.02.12. https://doi.org/10.31487/j.nnb.2020.02.12.

[52] Yilmaz K, Calişkan M, Oge E, Aydinli N, Tunaci M, Ozmen M. Clinical assessment, MRI, and EMG in congenital brachial plexus palsy. Pediatric Neurology. 1999; 21: 705–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0887-8994(99)00073-9.

[53] Cawthorn TR, Hopyan S, Clarke HM, Davidge KM. Management of Brachial Plexus Birth Injury: The SickKids Experience. Seminars in Plastic Surgery. 2023; 37: 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1769930.

[54] Van Dijk JG, Pondaag W, Buitenhuis SM, Van Zwet EW, Malessy MJA. Needle electromyography at 1 month predicts paralysis of elbow flexion at 3 months in obstetric brachial plexus lesions. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2012; 54: 753–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2012.04310.x.

[55] Thatte MR, Shah HR, Hiremath A. Birth Brachial Plexus Palsy: An Indian Perspective. Seminars in Plastic Surgery. 2023; 37: 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1767782.

[56] Koshinski JL, Russo SA, Zlotolow DA. Brachial plexus birth injury: a review of neurology literature assessing variability and current recommendations. Pediatric Neurology. 2022; 136: 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2022.07.009.

[57] Association of Paediatric Chartered Physiotherapists. Obstetric brachial plexus palsy: a guide to management. 2012. Available at: https://www.csp.org.uk/system/files/documents/2019-07/obstetric_brachial_plexus_palsy_-_a_guide_to_management.pdf (Accessed: 21 July 2025).

[58] Pondaag W, Malessy MJA. Outcome assessment for Brachial Plexus birth injury. Results from the iPluto world-wide consensus survey. Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 2018; 36: 2533–2541. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23901.

[59] Brown H, van der Looven R, Ho ES, Pondaag W. Patient reported outcomes in brachial plexus birth injury: results from the iPLUTO world-wide consensus survey. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2024; 46: 5213–5219. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2023.2298708.

[60] O’Shea G, Patel SS, Mailey BA. Brachial plexus birth injury: treatment and interventions. Plastic Surgery. 2025; 34: 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/22925503241301719.

[61] Durlacher KM, Bellows D, Verchere C. Sup-ER orthosis: an innovative treatment for infants with birth related brachial plexus injury. Journal of Hand Therapy. 2014; 27: 335–339; quiz 340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2014.06.001.

[62] Yefet LS, Bellows D, Bucevska M, Courtemanche R, Durlacher K, Hynes S, et al. Shoulder Rotation Function Following the Sup-ER Protocol in Children with Brachial Plexus Injuries. Hand. 2022; 17: 549–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944720937365.

[63] Gundlach B, Kozin SH, Zlotolow DA, Park E. The Philadelphia Shriners Hospital Approach to Brachial Plexus Birth Injury. Seminars in Plastic Surgery. 2023; 37: 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1768965.

[64] Grahn P, Pöyhiä T, Nietosvaara Y. Permanent Brachial Plexus Birth Injury: Helsinki Shoulder Protocol. Seminars in Plastic Surgery. 2023; 37: 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1768940.

[65] Bauer AS, Lucas JF, Heyrani N, Anderson RL, Kalish LA, James MA. Ultrasound Screening for Posterior Shoulder Dislocation in Infants with Persistent Brachial Plexus Birth Palsy. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). 2017; 99: 778–783. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00806.

[66] Michaud LJ, Louden EJ, Lippert WC, Allgier AJ, Foad SL, Mehlman CT. Use of botulinum toxin type A in the management of neonatal brachial plexus palsy. PM & R. 2014; 6: 1107–1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.05.002.

[67] Xi SD, Zhu YL, Chen C, Liu HQ, Wang WW, Li F. The plasticity of the corticospinal tract in children with obstetric brachial plexus palsy after Botulinum Toxin A treatment. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 2018; 394: 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2018.08.025.

[68] Arad E, Stephens D, Curtis CG, Clarke HM. Botulinum toxin for the treatment of motor imbalance in obstetrical brachial plexus palsy. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2013; 131: 1307–1315. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31828bd487.

[69] Greenhill DA, Wissinger K, Trionfo A, Solarz M, Kozin SH, Zlotolow DA. External Rotation Predicts Outcomes After Closed Glenohumeral Joint Reduction With Botulinum Toxin Type A in Brachial Plexus Birth Palsy. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics. 2018; 38: 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000735.

[70] Buchanan PJ, Grossman JAI, Price AE, Reddy C, Chopan M, Chim H. The Use of Botulinum Toxin Injection for Brachial Plexus Birth Injuries: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Hand. 2018; 14: 150–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944718760038.

[71] Martínez-Carlón-Reina M, Hareau-Bonomi J, Rodríguez-Pérez MP, Huertas-Hoyas E. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intervention Techniques in Occupational Therapy for Babies and Children with Obstetric Brachial Plexus Palsy. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13: 6186. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13206186.

[72] Werner JM, Berggren J, Loiselle J, Lee GK. Constraint-induced movement therapy for children with neonatal brachial plexus palsy: a randomized crossover trial. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 2021; 63: 545–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.14741.

[73] Sicari M, Longhi M, D’Angelo G, Boetto V, Lavorato A, Cocchini L, et al. Modified constraint induced movement therapy in children with obstetric brachial plexus palsy: a systematic review. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 2022; 58: 43–50. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.21.06886-6.

[74] Op de Coul LS, Bleeker S, de Groot JH, Nelissen RGHH, Steenbeek D. Elbow flexion contractures in neonatal brachial plexus palsy: A one-year comparison of dynamic orthosis and serial casting. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2023; 37: 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155221121011.

[75] El-Shamy S, Alsharif R. Effect of virtual reality versus conventional physiotherapy on upper extremity function in children with obstetric brachial plexus injury. Journal of Musculoskeletal & Neuronal Interactions. 2017; 17: 319–326.

[76] Grahn P, Sommarhem A, Nietosvaara Y. A protocol-based treatment plan to improve shoulder function in children with brachial plexus birth injury: a comparative study. The Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2022; 47: 248–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934211056998.

[77] Pondaag W, Malessy MJA. Evidence that nerve surgery improves functional outcome for obstetric brachial plexus injury. The Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume). 2020; 46: 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193420934676.

[78] Srinivasan N, Mahajan J, Gupta S, Shah YM, Shafei J, Levidy MF, et al. Surgical timing in neonatal brachial plexus palsy: A PRISMA-IPD systematic review. Microsurgery. 2022; 42: 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.30871.

[79] DiTaranto P, Campagna L, Price AE, Grossman JAI. Outcome following nonoperative treatment of brachial plexus birth injuries. Journal of Child Neurology. 2004; 19: 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/08830738040190020101.

[80] Gilbert A, Tassin JL. Surgical repair of the brachial plexus in obstetric paralysis. Chirurgie. 1984; 110: 70–75.

[81] Waters PM. Comparison of the natural history, the outcome of microsurgical repair, and the outcome of operative reconstruction in brachial plexus birth palsy. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume). 1999; 81: 649–659. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199905000-00006.

[82] Al-Qattan MM. The outcome of Erb’s palsy when the decision to operate is made at 4 months of age. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2000; 106: 1461–1465. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200012000-00003.

[83] Wilson TJ, Chang KWC, Yang LJS. Prediction Algorithm for Surgical Intervention in Neonatal Brachial Plexus Palsy. Neurosurgery. 2018; 82: 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyx190.

[84] Nickel KJ, Morzycki A, Hsiao R, Morhart MJ, Olson JL. Nerve Transfer Is Superior to Nerve Grafting for Suprascapular Nerve Reconstruction in Obstetrical Brachial Plexus Birth Injury: A Meta-Analysis. Hand. 2023; 18: 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/15589447211030691.

[85] Lin JC, Schwentker-Colizza A, Curtis CG, Clarke HM. Final results of grafting versus neurolysis in obstetrical brachial plexus palsy. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2009; 123: 939–948. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318199f4eb.

[86] Slutsky DJ. A practical approach to nerve grafting in the upper extremity. In Slutsky DJ, Hentz VR (eds.) Peripheral Nerve Surgery: Practical Applications in the Upper Extremity (pp. 61–80). Elsevier: Philadelphia. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-06667-2.50009-5.

[87] Ayache A, Unglaub F, Cavalcanti Kußmaul A, Spies CK, Langer MF. Peripheral nerve grafting. Operative Orthopadie Und Traumatologie. 2024; 36: 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-024-00862-w.

[88] Woo SJ, Chuieng-Yi Lu J. Proximal and Distal Nerve Transfers in the Management of Brachial Plexus Injuries. Clinics in Plastic Surgery. 2024; 51: 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2024.02.014.

[89] Pires JAP, Martins IC, Ohannesian VA, Ribeiro BDL, Marçola Ishizuka B, Ferreira JSN, et al. Long-term outcomes and effectiveness of interventions in neonatal brachial plexus palsy: A systematic review. Medicine. 2025; 104: e44508. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000044508.

[90] Hinchcliff KM, Pulos N, Shin AY, Stutz C. Morbidity of Nerve Transfers for Brachial Plexus Birth Injury: A Systematic Review. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics. 2021; 41: e188–e198. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001705.

[91] Allard R, Fitoussi F, Azarpira MR, Bachy M, Grimberg J, Le Hanneur M. Shoulder internal rotation contracture in brachial plexus birth injury: proximal or distal subscapularis release? Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2021; 30: 1117–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.08.001.

[92] Russo SA, Nice EM, Chafetz RS, Richards JG, Zlotolow DA, Kozin SH. Impact of tendon transfer on scapulothoracic and glenohumeral motion in children with brachial plexus birth injuries. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2025; 34: e227–e238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2024.06.027.