Anatomical variations of the formation and course of the sural nerve: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ramakrishnan, Piravin Kumar; Henry, Brandon Michael; Vikse, Jens; Roy, Joyeeta; Saganiak, Karolina; Mizia, Ewa; Tomaszewski, Krzysztof A.

doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2015.08.002

Cited by 51 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The anatomy of the SN as normally described is a combined origin from the medial sural cutaneous nerve (MSCN) and the peroneal communicating nerve (PCN), which arise from the tibial nerve (TN) and common peroneal nerve (CPN), respectively (Seema, ). However, this textbook anatomy is only seen just over 51% of cases (Ramakrishnan et al ). There are many variants, including solitary origins of the SN from the MSCN, the CPN, the lateral sural cutaneous nerve (LSCN), or even as high as the sciatic nerve (SCN) (Albay et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The surgical anatomy of the sural nerve: An ultrasound study

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was (a) to examine the anatomy of the sural nerve (SN) in a sample of 30 patients and (b) to analyze the incidence of different origins of the SN, and the distance of the SN from planned arthroscopic portals. An ultrasound (USG) examination of the SN was performed bilaterally on thirty healthy patients with no history of surgery or trauma of the lower limb. The SNs were classified into six main types of pattern, with an additional category for new and unclassified types. Each of Types 1 and 3 had two subdivisions. The distances from the superior border of the calcaneal tuberosity to the three simulated arthroscopy portal sites (Z1, Z1.5, Z2) to the SN were measured. A total of 30 patients (n = 60 limbs) with an average age of 27 ± 7.5 years were examined and the SN was visualized in all cases. The most common origin was Type 3A, accounting for 30% of limbs. Type 2 was the second most common seen in 18.3%. The distances of the SN from arthroscopic portal placement sites above the lateral malleolus were 2.07 ± 0.39 cm at the Z1 portal, 2.15 ± 0.38 cm at Z1.5, and 2.28 ± 0.33 cm at Z2. The variability in the anatomy of the SN warrants the use of USG to locate it accurately, thus preventing iatrogenic injury when portals are placed for arthroscopy, improving proper administration of anesthesia, and helping to localize the nerve for graft harvesting. Clin. Anat. 31:450-455, 2018. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The surgical anatomy of the sural nerve: An ultrasound study

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Items for the AQUA Tool were generated on the basis of (1) the extensive background of the steering committee in conceiving and executing anatomical metaanalyses and systematic reviews, and (2) a review of the anatomical literature (Andall et al, 2015;Henry et al, 2015aHenry et al, , 2015bRamakrishnan et al, 2015;Roy et al, 2015;Tomaszewski et al, 2016aTomaszewski et al, , 2016bTomaszewski et al, , 2016cTomaszewski et al, , 2016dVikse et al, 2016). No comprehensive systematic review of systematic reviews was performed because there was no previously-used quality assessment of anatomical studies, and the number of true evidence-based reviews and meta-analyses in the literature is limited.…”

Section: Preliminary Conceptual Design and Item Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Anatomical Quality Assessment (AQUA) Tool for the quality assessment of anatomical studies included in meta‐analyses and systematic reviews

Henry¹,

Tomaszewski²,

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critical appraisal of anatomical studies is essential before the evidence from them undergoes meta-epidemiological synthesis. However, no instrument for appraising anatomical studies with inherent applicability to different study designs is available. We aim to develop a generic yet comprehensive tool for assessing the quality of anatomical studies using a formal consensus method. The study steering committee formulated an initial conceptual design and generated items for a preliminary tool on the basis of a literature review and expert opinion. A Delphi procedure was then adopted to assess the validity of the preliminary tool. Feedback from the Delphi panelists was used to improve it. The Delphi procedure involved 12 experts in anatomical research. It comprised two rounds, after which unanimous consensus was reached about the items to be included. The preliminary tool consisted of 20 items, which were phrased as signaling questions and organized into five domains: 1. Aim and subject characteristics, 2. Study design, 3. Characterization of methods, 4. Descriptive anatomy, and 5. Results reporting. Each domain was set to end with a risk of bias question. Following round 1, some of the items underwent major revision, although agreement was reached regarding inclusion of all the domains and signaling questions in the preliminary tool. The tool was revised only for minor language inaccuracies after round 2. The AQUA Tool was designed to assess the quality and reliability of anatomical studies. It is currently undergoing a validation process. Clin. Anat. 30:6-13,

show abstract

“…), and the extensive background of the steering committee in conducting meta-analyses and systematic reviews of anatomical studies (Andall et al, 2015;Henry et al, 2015aHenry et al, , 2015bRamakrishnan et al, 2015;Roy et al, 2015aRoy et al, , 2015bTomaszewski et al, 2016aTomaszewski et al, , 2016bTomaszewski et al, , 2016cTomaszewski et al, , 2016dVikse et al, 2016), we developed a preliminary conceptual design for the AQUA Checklist. In addition to items considered standard in reporting all medical studies (sample size, demographics, results, etc.…”

Section: Preliminary Conceptual Design and Item Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In that context, the authors of the present study have developed the Anatomical Quality Assurance (AQUA) Checklist, the aim of which is to improve the quality of reporting of anatomical studies. From our extensive experience of evidence-based anatomical studies (Andall et al, 2015;Henry et al, 2015aHenry et al, , 2015bRamakrishnan et al, 2015;Roy et al, 2015aRoy et al, , 2015bTomaszewski et al, 2016aTomaszewski et al, , 2016bTomaszewski et al, , 2016cTomaszewski et al, , 2016dVikse et al, 2016), we have found that such studies are often poorly reported, thus decreasing their reliability and increasing the risk of bias. A high reporting quality is imperative since understanding and knowledge of anatomy allows for successful clinical interventions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Anatomical Quality Assurance (AQUA) Checklist: Guidelines for reporting original anatomical studies

Tomaszewski¹,

Henry²,

Ramakrishnan³

et al. 2016

Clinical Anatomy

Self Cite

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise of evidence-based anatomy has emphasized the need for original anatomical studies with high clarity, transparency, and comprehensiveness in reporting. Currently, inconsistencies in the quality and reporting of such studies have placed limits on accurate reliability and impact assessment. Our aim was to develop a checklist of reporting items that should be addressed by authors of original anatomical studies. The study steering committee formulated a preliminary conceptual design and began to generate items on the basis of a literature review and expert opinion. This led to the development of a preliminary checklist. The validity of this checklist was assessed by a Delphi procedure, and feedback from the Delphi panelists, who were experts in the area of anatomical research, was used to improve it. The Delphi procedure involved 12 experts in anatomical research. It comprised two rounds, after which unanimous consensus was reached regarding the items to be included in the checklist. The steering committee agreed to name the checklist AQUA. The preliminary AQUA Checklist consisted of 26 items divided into eight sections. Following round 1, some of the items underwent major revision and three new ones were introduced. The checklist was revised only for minor language inaccuracies after round 2. The final version of the AQUA Checklist consisted of the initial eight sections with a total of 29 items. The steering committee hopes the AQUA Checklist will improve the quality and reporting of anatomical studies. Clin.

show abstract

Anatomical variations of the formation and course of the sural nerve: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 51 publications

References 51 publications

The surgical anatomy of the sural nerve: An ultrasound study

The surgical anatomy of the sural nerve: An ultrasound study

Development of the Anatomical Quality Assessment (AQUA) Tool for the quality assessment of anatomical studies included in meta‐analyses and systematic reviews

Development of the Anatomical Quality Assurance (AQUA) Checklist: Guidelines for reporting original anatomical studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About