↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Anatomical etiology of “pseudo-sciatica” from superior cluneal nerve entrapment: a laboratory investigation

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Anatomical etiology of “pseudo-sciatica” from superior cluneal nerve entrapment: a laboratory investigation
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s142115
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

The superior cluneal nerve (SCN) may become entrapped where it pierces the thoracolumbar fascia over the iliac crest; this can cause low back pain (LBP) and referred pain radiating into the posterior thigh, calf, and occasionally the foot, producing the condition known as "pseudo-sciatica." Because the SCN was thought to be a cutaneous branch of the lumbar dorsal rami, originating from the dorsal roots of L1-L3, previous anatomical studies failed to explain why SCN causes "pseudo-sciatica". The purpose of the present anatomical study was to better elucidate the anatomy and improve the understanding of "pseudo-sciatica" from SCN entrapment. SCN branches were dissected from their origin to termination in subcutaneous tissue in 16 cadavers (5 male and 11 female) with a mean death age of 88 years (range 81-101 years). Special attention was paid to identify SCNs from their emergence from nerve roots and passage through the fascial attachment to the iliac crest. Eighty-one SCN branches were identified originating from T12 to L5 nerve roots with 13 branches passing through the osteofibrous tunnel. These 13 branches originated from L3 (two sides), L4 (six sides), and L5 (five sides). Ten of the 13 branches showed macroscopic entrapment in the tunnel. The majority of SCNs at risk of nerve entrapment originated from the lower lumbar nerve. These anatomical results may explain why patients with SCN entrapment often evince leg pain or tingling that mimics sciatica.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 19%
Other 6 13%
Student > Master 4 8%
Researcher 3 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 17 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 21%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 16 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 09 December 2021.
All research outputs
#6,003,745
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#582
of 1,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,557
of 328,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#22
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,731 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 328,009 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 60% of its contemporaries.