ArticleNeuroradiology2025
Advancing the diagnosis and management of pudendal nerve entrapment: The role of neurophysiological studies and imaging-guided infiltrations.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound-guided infiltration of the pudendal nerve: a technical approach for neuropathic pain management.Journal of ultrasound · 2026Review
- Botulinum toxin injection of the piriformis muscle for refractory pudendal neuralgia after decompression surgery: case report.Pain management · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePudendal nerve entrapment (PNE) diagnosis is not standardized. This leads to diagnosis delays, impacting quality of life and therapeutic outcomes. The main goal is to find the role of neurophysiological study (NFS) and Imaging-guided pudendal nerve infiltration (ImPNI) in PNE diagnosis and patient selection for surgery.
methodsA retrospective, multicentric study was conducted. Patients with PNE refractory to conservative treatment were included. Patient data, including NFS results, ImPNI, and surgical outcomes, were evaluated. A visual analogue scale was used to assess intervention response. Test performance metrics for NFS and ImPNI and binary logistic regression were used to determine their predictive value for postoperative improvement.
results88 patients were diagnosed with PNE. All had NFS, and ImPNI was performed in 69 (78.4%), with 60 (68.2%) showing symptom improvement. Among the 40 patients (85%) who underwent pudendal nerve decompression surgery, 75% improved after surgery, and 20% did not. The combination of NFS and ImPNI showed a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 85.7%, with a Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 98% and a Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of 30%. NFS and ImPNI were significant predictors of surgical success with p-values of 0.013 [ 95% CI: -23.6-19.9] and 0.003 [95% CI: -20.6 -18.5], respectively. Primary limitations: retrospective design and the absence of a control group.
conclusionsNFS and ImPNI are essential and highly reliable tools for diagnosing PNE. ImPNI is a valuable predictor of surgical outcomes. These findings enable precise patient selection for surgery, ensuring optimal surgical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40387915What 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.