ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2015
Surface and boney landmarks for sacral neuromodulation: a cadaveric study.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postoperative Pain Relief With Ultrasound-Guided Dorsal Sacral Foramen Block for Foot and Ankle Surgeries.Cureus · 2022Article
- Standardized fluoroscopy-guided implantation technique enables optimal electrode placement in sacral neuromodulation: a cadaver study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Article
- A Cadaveric Study on the Efficacy of Surface Marking and Bony Landmarks Used in Sacral Neuromodulation.Cureus · 2020Article
- Variation in bony landmarks and predictors of success with sacral neuromodulation.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- The development of neural stimulators: a review of preclinical safety and efficacy studies.Journal of neural engineering · 2018Article
- Surface anatomical landmarks for the location of posterior sacral foramina in sacral nerve stimulation.Techniques in coloproctology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisStandard external landmarks have been suggested as a guide for in-office percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE), but validity of these landmarks has not been assessed. Our objective was to determine whether the standard 9 cm from the tip of the coccyx indicates the position of the S3 sacral foramen and whether other boney landmarks and measurements improved positioning.
methodsMeasurements and distances between external boney landmarks were obtained in 22 embalmed cadavers. Spinal needles were placed 9 cm superior to the coccyx and 2 cm lateral to midline bilaterally. After dissection, internal measurements relating to sacral length, position of S3, and location of the needle in relation to S3 were recorded. Correlations among measured variables were assessed using descriptive statistics.
resultsMean distance from the tip of coccyx to S3 was 9.26 cm (±0.84), from S3 to midline 2.30 cm (±0.2); from needle to S3 1.25 cm, and needle placement was as likely to be placed above or below S3; and S2-S3 and S3-S4 interforamenal distance 1.48 cm (±0.30) and 1.48 cm (±0.24), respectively. Mean distance from S3 to sacroiliac joint (SIJ) was shorter than S2 to SIJ. All associations between external measurements and length from tip of coccyx to S3 were not significant.
conclusionA distance 9 cm from the tip of the coccyx is a reasonable starting landmark for in-office blind PNE. However, given the variability in coccyx length, caution should be taken; also, sensory-motor response is necessary to confirm proper placement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25257811What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.