Abstract
Global brachial plexopathies represent one of the most severe nerve injuries and usually affect young individuals at the prime of their life. Restoration of motor function in the shoulder and elbow do not automatically translate into improved functionality in daily life and/or psychological well-being. A vast majority of brachial plexus patients report to feel functionally limited to a great extent due to non-recovery or elbow recovery only. As with traditional primary and secondary reconstructions, it is thus important to highlight functional as well as psychosocial outcome variables following bionic reconstruction in patients with complete brachial plexus injuries. Here we describe effects of bionic hand reconstruction on various aspects of life including functionality, overall quality of life, body image, and deafferentation pain.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Brachial plexus injury
- Bionic reconstruction
- Prosthetic hand replacement
- Elective amputation
- Prosthetic rehabilitation
Global brachial plexopathies represent one of the most severe nerve injuries and usually affect young individuals at the prime of their life. Restoration of motor function in the shoulder and elbow do not automatically translate into improved functionality in daily life and/or psychological well-being. A vast majority of brachial plexus patients report to feel functionally limited to a great extent due to non-recovery or elbow recovery only. As with traditional primary and secondary reconstructions, it is thus important to highlight functional as well as psychosocial outcome variables following bionic reconstruction in patients with complete brachial plexus injuries. Here we describe effects of bionic hand reconstruction on various aspects of life including functionality, overall quality of life, body image, and deafferentation pain.
Background
Global brachial plexopathies including multiple nerve root avulsions have permanent and devastating effects on a patient’s physical, psychological, and socioeconomic well-being [23]. Typically, global brachial plexopathies affect young individuals at the prime of their life and in otherwise healthy condition [27]. Advances in microsurgical techniques as well as increasing numbers of civilian brachial plexus injuries (BPI) have promoted tremendous progress in brachial plexus repair [4]. Although stabilization of the shoulder joint and restoration of elbow function is achieved in the majority of patients, some still suffer from various physically and psychologically debilitating sequelae, which can further hinder psychosocial adjustment following the accident [11]. A “good” motor result, which may satisfy the reconstructive surgeon, does not always meet patients’ expectations as isolated functional gain might not improve the overall functionality in daily life and therefore does not automatically translate into psychological wellbeing [12, 19].
As with classic primary and secondary reconstructions, it is thus important to evaluate not only functional outcome measures of bionic reconstruction but also psychosocial outcome variables, which focus on patient-centered, subjective data highlighting benefits and merits of prosthetic hand replacement in patients with BPIs [15]. This chapter is dedicated to summarize effects of bionic reconstruction on various aspects of life including functionality in daily life, overall quality of life, body image, and deafferentation pain. Single steps of the procedure ranging from identification of eligible patients to final prosthetic fitting can be found in Chap. 17.
Functional Outcomes
In all patients with brachial plexus injuries, qualifying for bionic reconstruction global arm and hand function is assessed before elective amputation and after final prosthetic fitting with two-objective hand function tests (ARAT [31] and SHAP [21]) and a patient-reported questionnaire addressing subjective disability (DASH [18]). For detailed information on functional testing see Chap. 7.
As can be expected, all patients interested in the procedure of bionic reconstruction mainly report to feel functionally limited to a great extent due to either non-recovery or elbow flexion recovery only following various primary and secondary reconstructions performed elsewhere. Several national and international media reports have promoted interest in bionic reconstruction with the majority of patients explicitly wishing for functional improvement upon initial consultation.
It has been shown in various studies that bionic reconstruction enables prosthetic hand use after elective transradial amputation of the impaired plexus hand [1, 16]. A stable shoulder joint and good elbow function (>M4) to control the prosthetic hand in three-dimensional space have previously been defined as prerequisites for prosthetic hand replacement [16].
The concept of bionic reconstruction, however, is also applicable for patients without sufficient elbow function. If residual myoactivity can be detected at a more proximal level with identification of two or more separable EMG signals, which will later translate into antagonistic prosthetic functions, a short transhumeral or glenohumeral amputation of the functionless arm is performed to allow fitting of a prosthetic arm including a prosthetic elbow [14]. Widespread research in the field of prosthetics has promoted tremendous progress, particularly bringing forth improvements to replicate motor function and control [9]. Logically, the number of neuromuscular units that can be established as well as their function (i.e., signal consistency and amplitude) is related to enhanced control of a myoelectric prosthetic device. As a consequence of extensive neurological damage following a brachial plexus avulsion injury, however, residual myoactivity in these patients is often faint with absent, weak, or cognitively confusing signals [1]. Therefore, intense cognitive training programs are essential to realize good prosthetic hand use after elective amputation [26]. Patients in whom incompliance is expected thus do not qualify for bionic reconstruction. It is also important to stress that a myoelectric prosthesis by no means compares with a biological hand in terms of functionality [13]. However, given the futile hand function in patients with long-standing inveterate brachial plexopathies, excellent prospective prosthetic hand use justifies elective amputation and prosthetic hand replacement [16]. Patients need to be thoroughly informed that the bionic hand or arm will always remain an “assist” extremity, which will still considerably expand manual capacity during daily life activities due to regained bimanual dexterity [16].
Improved functionality after prosthetic replacement of the impaired plexus hand is not only reflected by significant increases in objective hand function scores, which have been reported in the literature [1, 16]. Likely even more important, statements of patients who have undergone bionic reconstruction highlight its efficacy to regain hand function. After having lived without any function in their limb for years or even decades, most patients are overwhelmed, for example, when they realize for the first time that they are able to prepare a meal all by themselves using two hands again. Patients can go back to pursuing hobbies, are reintegrated into working life, and report of increased self-confidence due to regained functionality.
Effects of Bionic Reconstruction on Quality of Life
Even if some function can be restored, patients with global brachial plexopathies still have to cope with several stressors including reduced self-sufficiency, dependence on others, occupational retraining following the accident, financial instability due to unemployment, as well as dissatisfaction with aesthetic appearance of the withered arm and hand [11, 19]. Symptoms of depression and/or anxiety appear in nearly one third of patients with complete BPI [19].
As an integral part of our assessments, quality of life is evaluated with the SF-36 Health Survey [30]. The questionnaire addresses eight independent subscales: physical functioning, physical role functioning, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social role functioning, emotional role functioning, and mental health. As is in agreement with previous studies, upon initial consultation, most of our patients have inferior results in regard to physical functioning and mental health as compared to healthy norm samples. Vitality and social role functioning are usually limited to a great extent.
Patients who have undergone bionic reconstruction stress that prosthetic hand replacement has changed their life in many ways. Not only do they report of improved physical functioning but also increased vitality and social and emotional functioning due to regained bimanual interaction with their environment. Returning to former social activities is usually accompanied by appreciable improvements in patient satisfaction [25]. Increased self-sufficiency and reduced reliance on others are rated as one of the most important benefits resulting from bionic reconstruction.
Effects of Bionic Reconstruction on Body Image
Clinicians familiar with brachial plexus injuries know that the affected limb will eventually become atrophic and cold with a distal bluish discoloration due to autonomic paralysis [5]. Since our hands represent the instruments with which we interact with our environment daily, this apparent physical deficit may cause psychological distress and potential social pressure [20]. Psychological sequelae include a disturbed body image and negative self-evaluation [20].
We regularly assess body image perception with the Body Image Questionnaire (FKB-20) before and after bionic reconstruction. This questionnaire is widely used for the diagnosis of body image disorders and evaluation of subjective body awareness [7]. Two scales can be identified: the scale “negative body evaluation” allows conclusions about physical appearance, body image, and associated subjective well-being with a person’s body image [8]; the scale “vital body dynamics” addresses bodily strength, fitness, and health, which are subjectively rated by the patient [8].
By evaluating pre- and post-bionic reconstruction scale scores we have found that prosthetic hand replacement restores an intact body image by resolution of the negative body evaluation present in the majority of brachial plexus patients [15]. During follow-up visits patients, regularly report of a high grade of embodiment of the prosthetic hand, stating that the prosthesis had become an integral component of their self-image using phrases like “For me this is not a mechatronic device. This is my new hand. I put it on right after waking up and mostly fall asleep at night having forgotten to take it off” [15].
Effects of Bionic Reconstruction on Deafferentation Pain
Deafferentation pain following brachial plexus avulsion injury is a severe chronic pain syndrome, which affects 70–90% of patients [2, 24, 28]. Mechanisms for its development are described in Chap. 16.
The approach of elective amputation has already been described for severe cases of complete BPI without the primary intention to replace the limb with a prosthesis [22]. Despite the fact that none of these used functional prostheses, afterward all were still satisfied with the decision to have the impaired hand amputated, as it served to relief patients of the burden of a flail, insensate arm [6, 12]. Importantly, however, chronic deafferentation pain did not improve by sole amputation of the deafferented hand. This is not surprising since the pain’s origin is thought to arise in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord [29]. Additionally, supraspinal central mechanisms are then thought to maintain the pain [10]. Following the “inner amputation,” which occurs after brachial plexus avulsion, the central nervous system (CNS) is deprived of its neurological connection to an extremely relevant piece of anatomy—the hand—which in fact entertains most of the primary motor and sensory cortex related to movement [23]. By replacing the functionless, insensate appendage with a prosthetic hand, the CNS again receives afferent input from the previously deafferented hand. Firstly, the patient receives visual feedback from his functioning hand, which he starts to use again on a daily basis, thereby slowly expelling the deafferented phantom hand from his awareness.
Motor recovery following classic reconstructive surgery, may it be very limited, has been associated with reduced deafferentation in various studies [2, 3, 17]. The fact that bionic reconstruction—successfully restoring hand function in patients who have lived without any function for a long time—effectively reduces deafferentation pain is thus not surprising. We refer to this phenomenon as “functional re-afferentation.”
References
Aszmann OC, Roche AD, Salminger S, Paternostro-Sluga T, Herceg M, Sturma A, et al. Bionic reconstruction to restore hand function after brachial plexus injury: a case series of three patients. Lancet. 2015;385:2183–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61776-1.
Berman J, Anand P, Chen L, Taggart M, Birch R. Pain relief from preganglionic injury to the brachial plexus by late intercostal nerve transfer. J Bone Joint Surg. 1996;78(5):759–60.
Berman JS, Birch R, Anand P. Pain following human brachial plexus injury with spinal cord root avulsion and the effect of surgery. Pain. 1998;75(2–3):199–207.
Bertelli JA, Ghizoni MF. Results and current approach for brachial plexus reconstruction. J Brachial Plex Peripher Nerve Inj. 2011;6(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7221-6-2.
Carlstedt T. Central nerve plexus injury. London/Hackensack, NJ: Imperial College Press/Distributed by World Scientific Pub; 2007.
Chuang DC. Adult brachial plexus reconstruction with the level of injury: review and personal experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(6 Suppl):e359–69. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181bcf16c.
Clement U, Lowe B. [Validation of the FKB-20 as scale for the detection of body image distortions in psychosomatic patients]. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 1996;46(7):254–9.
Clement U, Der Löwe B. “Fragebogen zum Körperbild (FKB-20)”: Literaturüberblick, Beschreibung und Prüfung eines Meßinstruments. Diagnostica. 1996;42:352–76.
Farina D, Aszmann O. Bionic limbs: clinical reality and academic promises. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(257):257ps12. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3010453.
Flor H, Diers M, Andoh J. The neural basis of phantom limb pain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013;17(7):307–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.007.
Franzblau L, Chung KC. Psychosocial outcomes and coping after complete avulsion traumatic brachial plexus injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(2):135–43. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.911971.
Franzblau LE, Shauver MJ, Chung KC. Patient satisfaction and self-reported outcomes after complete brachial plexus avulsion injury. J Hand Surg Am. 2014;39(5):948–55.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.01.022.
Graham B, Adkins P, Tsai TM, Firrell J, Breidenbach WC. Major replantation versus revision amputation and prosthetic fitting in the upper extremity: a late functional outcomes study. J Hand Surg Am. 1998;23(5):783–91.
Hruby LA, Gstoettner C, Sturma A, Salminger S, Mayer JA, Aszmann OC. Bionic upper limb reconstruction: a valuable alternative in global brachial plexus avulsion injuries—a case series. J Clin Med. 2019;9(1):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9010023.
Hruby LA, Pittermann A, Sturma A, Aszmann OC. The Vienna psychosocial assessment procedure for bionic reconstruction in patients with global brachial plexus injuries. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0189592. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189592.
Hruby LA, Sturma A, Mayer JA, Pittermann A, Salminger S, Aszmann OC. Algorithm for bionic hand reconstruction in patients with global brachial plexopathies. J Neurosurg. 2017;127(5):1–9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.6.JNS16154.
Htut M, Misra P, Anand P, Birch R, Carlstedt T. Pain phenomena and sensory recovery following brachial plexus avulsion injury and surgical repairs. J Hand Surg. 2006;31(6):596–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsb.2006.04.027.
Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L.
Kretschmer T, Ihle S, Antoniadis G, Seidel JA, Heinen C, Borm W, et al. Patient satisfaction and disability after brachial plexus surgery. Neurosurgery. 2009;65(4 Suppl):A189–96. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000335646.31980.33.
Kumnig M. The psychological assessment of candidates for reconstructive hand transplantation. Transpl Int. 2012;25(5):573–85.
Light CM, Chappell PH, Kyberd PJ. Establishing a standardized clinical assessment tool of pathologic and prosthetic hand function: normative data, reliability, and validity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(6):776–83.
Maldonado AA, Kircher MF, Spinner RJ, Bishop AT, Shin AY. The role of elective amputation in patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(3):311–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.10.019.
Nadi M, Midha R. Editorial: myoelectric functional hand prosthesis for total brachial plexus injury. J Neurosurg. 2017;127(5):1–3. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.7.JNS161501.
Parry CB. Pain in avulsion of the brachial plexus. Neurosurgery. 1984;15(6):960–5.
Salminger S, Roche AD, Hruby LA, Sturma A, Riedl O, Bergmeister KD, et al. Prosthetic reconstruction to restore function in transcarpal amputees. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(3):305–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.10.029.
Sturma A, Göbel, P., Herceg, M., Gee, N., Roche, A.D., Fialka-Moser, V., Aszmann, O.C. Advanced rehabilitation for amputees after selective nerve transfers: EMG-guided training and testing. In: Winnie Jensen, Andersen OK, Metin Akay, editor. Replace, repair, restore, relieve—bridging clinical and engineering solutions in neurorehabilitation. 2014. p. 169–177.
Terzis JK, Papakonstantinou KC. The surgical treatment of brachial plexus injuries in adults. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106(5):1097–122; quiz 123–4.
Thomas DG. Brachial plexus injury: deafferentation pain and dorsal root entry zone (DREZ) coagulation. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 1993;95 Suppl:S48–9.
Todd AJ. Neuronal circuitry for pain processing in the dorsal horn. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010;11(12):823–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2947.
Ware JE Jr, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 health survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):903–12.
Yozbatiran N, Der-Yeghiaian L, Cramer SC. A standardized approach to performing the action research arm test. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(1):78–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968307305353.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hruby, L.A., Sturma, A., Pittermann, A. (2021). Functional and Psychosocial Outcomes of Bionic Reconstruction and Impact on Quality of Life, Body Image Perception and Deafferentation Pain. In: Aszmann, O.C., Farina, D. (eds) Bionic Limb Reconstruction. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60746-3_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60746-3_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60745-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60746-3
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)