MARTIN–GRUBER ANASTOMOSIS AND ITS CLINICAL IMPORTANCE
https://doi.org/10.17650/1818-8338-2015-1-50-55
Abstract
The communication between the median and ulnar nerves on the forearm, known as the Martin–Gruber anastomosis, is widespread in the general population. Despite the fact that this connection is described by anatomists in XVIII century, its importance has only recently been appreciated because of the widespread of the electrophysiological techniques in clinical practies. However, in the Russian literature aspects of its practical value described so far is not enough. This article deals with the prevalence of the anastomosis, its anatomical and electrophysiological classification, options innervation of muscles of the hand, is carried out through him, described electrophysiological methods and criteria for its diagnosis, including the collision technique, in healthy subjects and patients with lesions of the median and ulnar nerves, given its practical value. Such a course of nerve fibers through this anastomosis can have a significant impact on the clinical manifestations in patients with lesions of the median and ulnar nerves, as well as the results of an electrophysiological study. Martin–Gruber anastomosis provides variability innervation muscles of the hand, which can make it difficult topic diagnostic damage to the median and ulnar nerves, in addition, because of the connection between the nerves of the clinical presentation may not reflect the extent of their defeat: the hand muscles function can be preserved with full nerve damage or, conversely, significantly disrupted with minimal nerve lesions. Moreover, different electrophysiological findings on patients with pathology of the median or ulnar nerves in the conditions of functioning anastomosis may also complicate the interpretation of the clinical data. Thus, knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of the Martin–Gruber communication as necessary for the electrophysiologist for correct interpretation of the finding and the clinician to accurately diagnose the pathology of the median and ulnar nerves and correct choice of treatment.
About the Author
I. G. Mikhaylyuk
Department of Nervous System Diseases with Medical Genetics and Neurosurgery, Yaroslavl State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia; 5 Revolyutsionnaya St., Yaroslavl, 150000, Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Kazakos K.J., Smyrnis A., Xarchas K.C. et al. Anastomosis between the median and ulnar nerve in the forearm. An anatomic study and literature review. Acta Orthop Belg 2005;71(1):29–35.
2. Amoiridis G., Vlachonikolis I.G. Verification of the median-to-ulnar and ulnarto-median nerve motor fiber anastomosis in the forearm: an electrophysiological study. Clin Neurophysiol 2003;114(1):94–8.
3. Brandsma J.W., Birke J.A., Sims D.S. Jr. The Martin–Gruber innervated hand. J Hand Surg Am 1986;11(4):536–9.
4. Felippe M.M., Telles F.L., Soares A.C.L. et al. Anastomosis between median nerve and ulnar nerve in the forearm. J Morphol Sci 2012;29(1):23–6.
5. Sarikcioglu L., Sindel M., Ozkaynak S., Aydin H. Median and ulnar nerve communication in the forearm: an anatomical and electrophysiological study. Med Sci Monit 2003;9(9):BR351–6.
6. Srinivasan R., Rhodes J. The median-ulnar anastomosis (Martin–Gruber) in normal and congenitally abnormal fetuses. Arch Neurol 1981;38(7):418–9.
7. Nakashima T. An anatomic study on the Martin–Gruber anastomosis. Surg Radiol Anat 1993;15(3):193–5.
8. Taams K.O. Martin–Gruber connections in South Africa. J Hand Surg Br 1997;22(3): 328–30.
9. Shu H.S., Chantelot C., Oberlin C. et al. Martin–Gruber communicating branch: anatomical and histological study. Surg Radiol Anat 1999;21(2):115–8.
10. Rodriguez-Niedenfuhr M., Vazquez T., Parkin I. et al. Martin–Gruber anastomosis revisited. Clin Anat 2002;15(2): 129–34.
11. Prates L.C., Carvalho V.C., Prates J.C. et al. The Martin–Gruber anastomosis in brazilians: an anatomical study. Braz J Morphol Sci 2003;20(3): 177–80.
12. Crutchfield C.A., Gutmann L. Hereditary aspects of median-ulnar nerve communications. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1980;43(1):53–5.
13. Mannerfelt L. Studies on the hand of in ulnar nerve paralysis. A clinical experimental investigation in normal and anomalous innervations. Acta Orthop Scand 1966: Suppl 87:1+.
14. Kimura J., Murphy M.J., Varda D.J. Electrophysiological study of anomalous innervation of intrinsic hand muscles. Arch Neurol 1976;33(12):842–4.
15. Kayamori R. Electrodiagnosis in Martin– Gruber anastomosis. Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 1987;61(12):1367–72.
16. Simonetti S. Electrophysiological study of forearm sensory fiber crossover in Martin– Gruber anastomosis. Muscle Nerve 2001;24(3):380–6.
17. Erdem H.R., Ergun S., Erturk C., Ozel S. Electrophysiological evaluation of the incidence of Martin–Gruber anastomosis in healthy subjects. Yonsei Med J 2002;43(3):291–5.
18. Pawara S., Gatheb B., Jain A.P. et al. Electrophysiologic study of Martin–Gruber аnastomosis (MGA) in Central Indian subjects. Int J Biol Med Res 2011;2(4): 1165–7.
19. Preston D.C., Shapiro B.E. Electromyography and neuromuscular disorders: clinical-electrophysiologic correlations. Boston: Butterworth– Heinemann, 1998.
20. Kimura J. Electrodiagnosis in diseases of nerve and muscle: principles and practice. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, 2001.
21. Oh S. Clinical еlectromyography: nerve conduction studies. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 2003.
22. Kimura J. Electrodiagnosis in diseases of nerve and muscle. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Davis, 1989.
23. Gutmann L., Gutierrez A., Riggs J.E. The contribution of median to ulnar communication in diagnosis of mild carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1986;9(4):319–21.
24. Iyer V., Fenichel G.M. Normal median nerve proximal latency in carpal tunnel syndrome: a clue to coexisting Martin–Gruber anastomosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1976;39(5):449–52.
25. Kimura J. Collision technique. Physiologic block of nerve impulses in studies of motor nerve conduction velocity. Neurology 1976;26(7):680–2.
26. Gutmann L. AAEM minimonograph #2: important anomalous innervations of the extremities. Muscle Nerve 1993;16(4):339–47.
27. Sraj S.A., Moussallem C.D., Stafford J.B. Cubital tunnel syndrome presenting with carpal tunnel symptoms: clinical evidence for sensory ulnar-to-median nerve communication. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2009;38(6):E104–6.
28. Rodriguez-Niedenfuhr M., Vazquez T., Ferreira B. et al. Intramuscular Martin– Gruber anastomosis. Clin Anat 2002;15(2):135–8.
29. Kline D.G., Hubson A.R. Acute injuries of the peripheral nerve. In: J.R. Voumans (ed.). Neurological surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1990.
30. Van Tieghem J., Vandendriessche G., Vanhecke J. Martin–Gruber anastomosis: the explanation for late diagnosis of severe ulnar nerve lesions at the elbow. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1987;27(1):13–8.
31. Kim B.J., Kim D.H. Ulnar neuropathy around the mid-arm combined with Martin– Gruber anastomosis. Ann Rehabil Med 2012;36(5):719–23.
Review
For citations:
Mikhaylyuk I.G. MARTIN–GRUBER ANASTOMOSIS AND ITS CLINICAL IMPORTANCE. The Clinician. 2015;9(1):50-55. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1818-8338-2015-1-50-55
Views:
4241
Email this article 