ReviewBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Intraneural nodular fasciitis in peripheral nerves: report of two cases and literature review.
Review in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Regressing intraneural nodular fasciitis of the femoral nerve.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough nodular fasciimmon and can occur in various anatomical locations, its occurrence within a nerve is extremely rare. Nodular fasciitis usually resolves spontaneously after partial resection. However, it often presents diagnostic challenges due to its resemblance to malignant diseases, resulting in excessive treatments such as extended nerve excision and nerve transplantation. CASE PRESENTATION: We report two cases of intraneural nodular fasciitis. A 37-year-old woman presented with left upper limb numbness and pain, without trauma history. Preoperative ultrasound was performed. Subtotal resection of the mass in the superficial branch of the radial nerve was conducted. Postoperative pathology and immunohistochemistry confirmed intraneural nodular fasciitis. At 9-month follow-up, symptoms resolved with no recurrence of the mass. A 15-year-old female presented with progressive right lower limb numbness, later accompanied by pain, distal muscle weakness, and difficulty in lifting the foot. Preoperative ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging were performed. The mass within the sciatic nerve was completely removed. Postoperative pathology and immunohistochemistry confirmed intraneural nodular fasciitis. At 3-month follow-up, symptoms resolved with no recurrence of the mass.
conclusionsAccurate diagnosis of intraneural nodular fasciitis is crucial to prevent unnecessary treatment. Its ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging features lack specificity. Preoperative biopsy using ultrasound or computed tomography guidance may be considered if necessary and safe. The histopathological features for intraneural nodular fasciitis exhibits spindle cells in a tissue-culture-like pattern within a richly myxoid matrix, abundant capillaries, inflammatory cell infiltration, frequent mitotic figures without atypia, and infiltrative margins. Immunohistochemically, intraneural nodular fasciitis is characterized by SMA(+) and S100(-). Surgical excision of the lesion is necessary to prevent neurological deficits. And the vast majority of intraneural nodular fasciitis cases spontaneously regress after subtotal resection. A comprehensive diagnostic approach is recommended when intraneural nodular fasciitis is suspected. This article analyzes the diagnostic workup and pathogenesis of all 13 reported intraneural nodular fasciitis cases (including our two), aiming to aid clinicians in achieving precise diagnosis and avoiding overtreatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.