ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2025
Anatomical validation of the sonographic detection of small nervous structures.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasonograhic Identification of the Entrapment of a Transligamentous Sensory Branch of the Ulnar Nerve.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Anatomical considerations for safe retractor placement in distal biceps repair: a cadaveric study of the posterior interosseous nerve.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2025Article
- Study of superficial variations of ulnar nerve beyond the flexor retinaculum: a comprehensive review for surgical practice.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUltrasound is a primary imaging modality for diagnosing and managing nerve-related injuries, particularly for identifying peripheral nerve locations. However, its accuracy and reliability in surgical applications remain insufficiently explored, potentially limiting its utility in nerve surgery. PURPOSE: This study aims to assess the precision of ultrasound in identifying upper limb peripheral nerves by comparing ultrasonographic findings with direct human cadaveric dissection.
methodFourteen fresh-frozen upper limb specimens were examined in February 2023. Ultrasound assessments were performed by two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists using three linear probes (15 MHz, 24 MHz, and a 22 MHz hockey stick probe). Seven peripheral nerves were identified and marked using dye injections. Subsequent dissections were conducted under loupe magnification by hand surgeons.
resultThe recurrent motor branch of the median nerve exhibited the lowest discrepancy (mean 1.014 ± 1.459 mm) and the highest accuracy (64.29% of specimens). The greatest discrepancy was observed in the branch of the musculocutaneous nerve to the brachialis (mean 5.114 ± 3.758 mm). The interrater correlation coefficient (ICC) varied across nerve sites, ranging from - 6.298 to 0.795, with the highest ICC observed in the superficial branch of the ulnar nerve (0.795, 0.066).
conclusionThese findings suggest that ultrasound is a valid and effective tool for identifying peripheral nerve branches in the upper limb, particularly for superficial nerves. Improved accuracy in ultrasound-guided nerve identification may enhance surgical precision and reduce complications in nerve-related procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40021499What 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.