Median and ulnar nerve anastomoses in the upper limb: A meta‐analysis

Roy, Joyeeta; Henry, Brandon Michael; Pękala, Przemysław A.; Vikse, Jens; Saganiak, Karolina; Walocha, Jerzy; Tomaszewski, Krzysztof A.

doi:10.1002/mus.24993

Cited by 83 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other common variations included anastomoses between the ulnar and median nerves at the level of the digital nerves to fingers four and five, which was observed in 57% of specimens. These findings are similar to findings in the previous literature on an anastomosis in the same area named the Berretini anastomosis which has a prevalence of 60.9% [13]. We would like to acknowledge that other variations in the anatomy of the UN are possible; however, they were not seen in the samples studied.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Anatomical variability and histological structure of the ulnar nerve in the Guyon’s canal

Depukat

Henry

Popieluszko

et al. 2016

Arch Orthop Trauma Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe goal of our study was to analyze the prevalence of variations, branching patterns, and histology of the ulnar nerve (UN) in Guyon’s canal to address its importance in hand surgery, particularly decompression of the UN.MethodsFifty fresh cadavers were dissected bilaterally, and the nerve in the area of Guyon’s canal was visualized. Samples for histology were also taken and prepared. The collected data were then analyzed.ResultsMorphometric measurements of the hands and histological studies were not found to have significant differences when compared by left or right side or by sex. Three major branching patterns were found, with division into deep and superficial UN being the most common (85%). Additional findings included a majority (70%) presenting with a cutaneous branch within the canal and/or with an anastomosis of its distant branches with those of the median nerve (57%).ConclusionThe UN is most commonly found to divide into a superficial and deep ulnar branch within Guyon’s canal. However, additional branches and anastomoses are common and should be taken into careful consideration when approached during surgery in the area, particularly during decompression procedures of Guyon’s canal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Anatomical variability and histological structure of the ulnar nerve in the Guyon’s canal

Depukat

Henry

Popieluszko

et al. 2016

Arch Orthop Trauma Surg

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

Median and ulnar nerve anastomoses in the upper limb: A meta‐analysis

Abstract: As anastomoses between the median and ulnar nerves occur commonly, detailed anatomical knowledge is essential for accurate interpretation of electrophysiological findings and reducing the risk of iatrogenic injuries during surgical procedures. Muscle Nerve 54: 36-47, 2016.

Cited by 83 publications

References 53 publications

Anatomical variability and histological structure of the ulnar nerve in the Guyon’s canal

Anatomical variability and histological structure of the ulnar nerve in the Guyon’s canal

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