Table 2.

Comparison of Outcomes in “Alternative” Double Transfer between End to End and Reverse End to Side

Patient Characteristics and Outcome Measure	End to End, Mean (SD)	Reverse End to Side, Mean (SD)	P
Retrospective Study
Age	45.0 (13.73)	58.18 (13.93)	0.06
	n = 8	n = 11
	Range, 22–62	Range, 26–73
Injury to surgery (d)	185.3 (55.55)	267.6 (100.7)	0.04
	n = 8	n = 11
	Range, 117–296	Range, 191–504
Clinic follow-up (d)	550.3 (242.6)	489.9 (254.2)	0.61
	n = 8	n = 11
	Range, 228–936	Range, 187–876
Preoperative shoulder abduction (MRC-MS)	1.75 (1.28)	1.46 (1.21)	0.62
	n = 8	n = 11
	Range, 0–3	Range, 0–4
Postoperative shoulder abduction (MRC-MS)	3.75 (0.89)	3.91 (0.54)	0.66
	n = 8	n = 11
	Range, 2–5	Range, 3–5
Shoulder abduction mean difference in MRC-MS	2.0 (1.31)	2.46 (1.34)	0.47
	n = 8	n = 11
	Range, 1–4	Range, 0–5
No. patients with final MRC-MS ≥4	75% (6/8)	82% (9/11)
Prospective study
RedCap follow-up (d)	906.7 (551.5)	1009 (622.8)	0.73
	n = 7	n = 9
	Range, 228–1635	Range, 320–2208
Video measured shoulder abduction AROM	139.2 (61.86)	140.9 (45.12)	0.95
	n = 5	n = 8
	Range, 29 – 174	Range, 60–180
Video measured shoulder flexion AROM	139.3 (33.13)	135.7 (41.74)	0.89
	n = 5	n = 8
	Range, 102 – 174	Range, 80–180
DASH score	20.7 (17.90)	37.78 (30.36)	0.21
	n = 7	n = 9
	Range, 2–59	Range, 0–76
Patients with double fascicular nerve transfer for elbow flexion	37.5% (3/8)	45% (5/11)

Bolded items represent statistical significance (p < 0.05). AROM, active range of motion.