↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Anatomical study of middle cluneal nerve entrapment

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Anatomical study of middle cluneal nerve entrapment
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s135382
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomoyuki Konno, Yoichi Aota, Tomoyuki Saito, Ning Qu, Shogo Hayashi, Shinichi Kawata, Masahiro Itoh, Nasahiro Itoh

Abstract

Entrapment of the middle cluneal nerve (MCN) under the long posterior sacroiliac ligament (LPSL) is a possible, and underdiagnosed, cause of low-back and/or leg symptoms. To date, detailed anatomical studies of MCN entrapment are few. The purpose of this study was to ascertain, using cadavers, the relationship between the MCN and LPSL and to investigate MCN entrapment. A total of 30 hemipelves from 20 cadaveric donors (15 female, 5 male) designated for education or research, were studied by gross anatomical dissection. The age range of the donors at death was 71-101 years with a mean of 88 years. Branches of the MCN were identified under or over the gluteus maximus fascia caudal to the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) and traced laterally as far as their finest ramification. Special attention was paid to the relationship between the MCN and LPSL. The distance from the branch of the MCN to the PSIS and to the midline and the diameter of the MCN were measured. A total of 64 MCN branches were identified in the 30 hemipelves. Of 64 branches, 10 (16%) penetrated the LPSL. The average cephalocaudal distance from the PSIS to where the MCN penetrated the LPSL was 28.5±11.2 mm (9.1-53.7 mm). The distance from the midline was 36.0±6.4 mm (23.5-45.2 mm). The diameter of the MCN branch traversing the LPSL averaged 1.6±0.5 mm (0.5-3.1 mm). Four of the 10 branches penetrating the LPSL had obvious constriction under the ligament. This is the first anatomical study illustrating MCN entrapment. It is likely that MCN entrapment is not a rare clinical entity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 5 28%
Student > Master 4 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 78%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2017.
All research outputs
#3,244,378
of 11,553,067 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#272
of 703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,823
of 264,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#22
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,553,067 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 703 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.