The course of the sciatic nerve in the gluteal region and comparison of two methods used for sciatic nerve blockage

Anatomy Pub Date : 2022-04-20 DOI:10.2399/ana.22.1142650
Bilge İpek Torun
{"title":"The course of the sciatic nerve in the gluteal region and comparison of two methods used for sciatic nerve blockage","authors":"Bilge İpek Torun","doi":"10.2399/ana.22.1142650","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The aim of this study was to reevaluate the anatomy of the sciatic nerve (SN) in the gluteal region by identifying reliable landmarks in order to suggest a safe insertion point for SN blockage (SNB), and to compare two methods used for SNB. Methods: Bilateral dissections of the SN were performed on ten embalmed cadavers. The course of the SN in relation to a line drawn between the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) and the ischial tuberosity (IT) was determined. The files of 100 patients, 50 of whom had SNB with the Labat’s method (group L) and 50 with the parasacral approach (group P), were reviewed retrospectively. The results of the two methods were compared. Results: The vertical distance between the PSIS to the IT was 13.1±6.5cm. The vertical distance between the intersection points of the inferior border of the piriformis with the medial and lateral margins of the SN were 7.8±0.7 and 9.1±0.6 cm, respectively. Medial and lateral margins of the SN were found to be 1.8±0.5 and 2.9±0.6 cm lateral to the IT. Insertion depth of the needle and time for the intervention were similar for both of the methods, but need for additional nerve blockages were significantly higher in group L than in group P. Conclusion: We defined a safe insertion point for SNB in the gluteal region, using prominent, fixed bony and easily detectable landmarks. The clinical results of both groups were similar, but need for additional nerve blockages were significantly higher in group L.","PeriodicalId":91999,"journal":{"name":"Anatomy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anatomy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2399/ana.22.1142650","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to reevaluate the anatomy of the sciatic nerve (SN) in the gluteal region by identifying reliable landmarks in order to suggest a safe insertion point for SN blockage (SNB), and to compare two methods used for SNB. Methods: Bilateral dissections of the SN were performed on ten embalmed cadavers. The course of the SN in relation to a line drawn between the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) and the ischial tuberosity (IT) was determined. The files of 100 patients, 50 of whom had SNB with the Labat’s method (group L) and 50 with the parasacral approach (group P), were reviewed retrospectively. The results of the two methods were compared. Results: The vertical distance between the PSIS to the IT was 13.1±6.5cm. The vertical distance between the intersection points of the inferior border of the piriformis with the medial and lateral margins of the SN were 7.8±0.7 and 9.1±0.6 cm, respectively. Medial and lateral margins of the SN were found to be 1.8±0.5 and 2.9±0.6 cm lateral to the IT. Insertion depth of the needle and time for the intervention were similar for both of the methods, but need for additional nerve blockages were significantly higher in group L than in group P. Conclusion: We defined a safe insertion point for SNB in the gluteal region, using prominent, fixed bony and easily detectable landmarks. The clinical results of both groups were similar, but need for additional nerve blockages were significantly higher in group L.
坐骨神经在臀区的走行及两种坐骨神经阻滞方法的比较
目的:本研究的目的是通过确定可靠的标志来重新评估臀区坐骨神经(SN)的解剖结构,以建议坐骨神经阻滞(SNB)的安全插入点,并比较两种用于SNB的方法。方法:对10具尸体进行双侧解剖。确定SN与髂后上棘(PSIS)和坐骨结节(IT)之间的连线相关的路线。回顾性分析100例患者的资料,其中50例采用Labat方法(L组),50例采用骶旁入路(P组)。比较了两种方法的结果。结果:PSIS与IT的垂直距离为13.1±6.5cm。梨状肌下缘交点与SN内缘、外侧缘垂直距离分别为7.8±0.7 cm、9.1±0.6 cm。SN内侧缘和外侧缘分别位于IT外侧1.8±0.5 cm和2.9±0.6 cm。两种方法的针头插入深度和干预时间相似,但L组需要额外的神经阻滞明显高于p组。结论:我们在臀区定义了SNB的安全插入点,使用突出的,固定的骨和易于检测的标志。两组临床结果相似,但L组需要额外的神经阻滞。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信