SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Surgical anatomy of the recurrent laryngeal nerve: a systematic review and meta-analysis of variants.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInjury to the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) remains a significant concern in thyroid surgery. The inferior thyroid artery (ITA) is frequently used as a landmark. Yet, the RLN-ITA relationship shows substantial anatomical variability, and the non-recurrent laryngeal nerve (NRLN) represents a rare but high-risk variant. This systematic review and meta-analysis quantified the prevalence of RLN-ITA topographic patterns and NRLN occurrence. MATERIALS AND
methodsA PRISMA-compliant search was performed across major databases up to May 1, 2025. Eligible studies included intraoperative, cadaveric, or mixed anatomical series reporting extractable numerical data on RLN-ITA relationships (anterior, posterior, interposed) and/or NRLN prevalence, using the hemisoma as the unit of analysis. Study quality was assessed with the AQUA tool. Proportions were pooled using Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation under a random-effects model with REML estimation. Heterogeneity was quantified with I², τ², and Cochran's Q, and prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted by study setting.
resultsSixty studies (1973-2025) comprising 9,032 patients and 14,820 hemisomas were included. Fifty-seven studies contributed 14,169 hemisomas to the RLN-ITA synthesis. Crude proportions were posterior 54.43% (7,712/14,169), anterior 27.11% (3,841/14,169), and interposed 18.46% (2,616/14,169). Random-effects pooling confirmed a posterior course as the most frequent configuration (~ 52%, 95% CI ~ 46-58%), followed by anterior (~ 30%, 95% CI ~ 24-36%) and interposed (~ 18%, 95% CI ~ 15-21%), with very high heterogeneity (I² > 97%). Subgroup analyses of intraoperative (30 studies; 10,376 hemisomas) and cadaveric (25 studies; 3,589 hemisomas) series yielded similar distributions, with persistently high heterogeneity (I² > 94%). Across all studies, 39 NRLNs were identified, all on the right side, corresponding to a prevalence of 0.78% among right hemisomas (n = 4,974); no left-sided NRLNs were reported.
conclusionThe RLN most commonly courses posterior to the ITA, but anterior and interposed variants are sufficiently frequent to mandate systematic intraoperative verification before vessel ligation. The NRLN is rare and exclusively right-sided in available data, yet clinically significant due to its high injury risk. Marked between-study heterogeneity highlights the need for standardized definitions and side-specific reporting in future anatomical research.
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.