ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2026
Histological evaluation of fascicular damage following repeated sciatic nerve transfixion: an anatomical study.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundUltrasound guidance has improved the accuracy and safety of peripheral nerve blocks, yet intraneural and even intrafascicular needle placement remains possible. The true incidence of fascicular injury after direct nerve transfixion is uncertain due to limited histological data. This study aimed to determine the frequency of fascicular damage after needle transfixion of the sciatic nerve using a human anatomical model.
methodsA sciatic nerve segment was harvested from a fresh-frozen male cadaver without neurological disease. One hundred full-thickness transfixions were performed using a 22-gauge sharp needle, simulating accidental intraneural penetration. Each transfixion was replicated using a standardized technique. The nerve was fixed in formalin, sectioned every 5 mm, embedded in paraffin, and stained with hematoxylin and eosin for histological evaluation. The presence of fascicular injury or displacement was assessed microscopically. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize findings, and proportions with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Wald method.
resultsAll 100 needle trajectories were successfully identified histologically. Clear fascicular damage was observed in 30 of 100 transfixions, corresponding to an incidence of 30% (95% confidence interval, 21 to 39%). In four additional cases, the needle passed in close proximity to fascicles, causing their displacement without visible structural injury, yielding an incidence of 4% (95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 7.8%). In the remaining cases, the needle path did not involve any fascicles.
conclusionsOne third of simulated sciatic nerve transfixions performed with a sharp needle resulted in direct fascicular injury, while a smaller proportion produced fascicular displacement without structural disruption. These findings suggest that fascicular penetration is more common than previously believed when sharp needles are used and highlight the potential for mechanical nerve injury during regional anesthesia procedures. The use of sharp needles for peripheral nerve blocks should be avoided, and further research should explore how needle design and tip geometry influence the likelihood of fascicular injury.
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.