Atormac
briv
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 674  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (467 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed140    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded12    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
COMMENTARY
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 69  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 956

Commentary on Prevalence of Martin–Gruber Anastomosis in Healthy Subjects: An Electrophysiological Study from Raigarh, Chhattisgarh


Mayo Clinic Health System, Mankato, MN, USA

Date of Submission06-Aug-2021
Date of Acceptance06-Aug-2021
Date of Web Publication2-Sep-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Manish Singh Sharma
Mayo Clinic Health System, Mankato, MN
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.325375

Rights and Permissions



How to cite this article:
Sharma MS. Commentary on Prevalence of Martin–Gruber Anastomosis in Healthy Subjects: An Electrophysiological Study from Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Neurol India 2021;69:956

How to cite this URL:
Sharma MS. Commentary on Prevalence of Martin–Gruber Anastomosis in Healthy Subjects: An Electrophysiological Study from Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Neurol India [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 18];69:956. Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2021/69/4/956/325375




Sur et al.[1] determined that there was electrophysiological evidence of an Martin–Gruber (MG) anastomosis in 16% of 280 forearms affecting 21% of 140 subjects. This was bilateral in 10% of all subjects. MG anastomosis describes a neural connection with the transfer of typical motor fascicles from the median nerve to the ulnar nerve in the forearm. The connection is usually single but duplications may occur. These arise from the median nerve trunk and branch to the superficial forearm flexor muscles or the anterior interosseous nerve.[2] These studies add to the wealth of data available from India and correlates with that available from meta-analyses.[3],[4]

The MG anastomosis is by far the commonest of those in the upper extremity and, along with the Marinacci, Riche–Cannieu, and Berrettini presentations, adds to the variability of innervation of upper extremity muscles in the human body.[5] Needless to state, a clear understanding of these variations is critical to the clinical and electrophysiological evaluation of nerve injuries. These anastomoses can explain why patients with ulnar nerve injuries in the elbow may not manifest intrinsic hand muscle wasting and dysfunction, and patients with severe carpal tunnel syndrome may have preserved muscle strength, no atrophy, and normal motor velocities. An incorrect diagnosis of an ulnar nerve conduction block may result in an unindicated exploration with an iatrogenic injury, especially after transposition as these connections cannot be interrupted.[6] Additionally, intramuscular variations supplying the flexor digitorum profundus may prove to be a point of nerve compression.[1]

In practice, ultrasound has evolved rapidly to become an invaluable adjunct to electrophysiological studies. It is exciting to note that these anastomoses can be directly visualized using this modality.[7]

To conclude, there is a 1 in 5 chance of encountering aberrant anatomy in Indian patients who present with nerve disorders. The eventual diagnosis and localization of these, in my opinion, is team-based. This is primarily determined by sound clinical judgment supplemented by electrophysiological and radiological studies performed by skilled and knowledgeable colleagues.



 
  References Top

1.
Sur A, Sinha MM, Ughade JM. Prevalence of martin-gruber anastomosis in healthy subjects: An electrophysiological study from Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Neurol India XX; XX: XX.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Niedenführ M, Vazquez T, Parkin I, Logan B, Sañudo JR. Martin-Gruber anastomosis revisited. Clin Anat 2002;15:129-34.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Kaur N, Singla RK, Kullar JS. Martin-Gruber anastomosis- A cadaveric study in North Indian Population. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:AC09-11.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Roy J, Henry BM, Pekala PA, Vikse J, Saganiak K, Walocha JA, et al. Median and ulnar nerve anastomoses in the upper limb: A meta-analysis. Muscle Nerve 2016;54:36-47.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Smith JL, Siddiqui SA, Ebraheim NA. Comprehensive summary of anastomoses between the median and ulnar nerves in the forearm and hand. J Hand Microsurg 2019;11:1-5.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Isaković E, Delić J, Bajtarević A. Martin-Gruber anastomosis and transposition in cubital tunnel. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 2007;7:71-3.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Gans P, Van Alfen N. Nerve ultrasound showing Martin-Gruber anastomosis. Muscle Nerve 2017;56:E46-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow