↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Other 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 13 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Sports and Recreations 3 7%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 26 May 2022.
All research outputs
#3,579,773
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#387
of 1,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,425
of 316,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#19
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 316,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.