ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026
Anatomical Variations and Morphometry of the Pudendal Nerve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively review the available literature and determine the pooled prevalence of the morphometric and topographical characteristics of the pudendal nerve (PN), providing a better understanding of its anatomical variations and, consequently, enhancing patient safety during pelvic procedures.
methodsA comprehensive search was performed across various major databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science to find all articles regarding the morphology and anatomy of the PN. A total of 29 studies were included in this meta-analysis.
resultsThe most common type of PN trunk was a single trunk with 61.27% (95% CI 48.02-73.74%) prevalence, followed by double PN trunk with 27.94% (95% CI 17.74-39.41%). The mean diameter of the PN in the cadaveric studies was 3.73 mm (SE 0.33). The mean length of the PN in the cadaveric studies was 56.08 mm (SE 0.82).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis highlights the substantial anatomical variability of the pudendal nerve, which limits the feasibility of a single, universally applicable classification system. A comprehensive understanding of its morphology and branching patterns is essential for improving the safety and effectiveness of surgical and anesthetic procedures in the pelvic region. The findings emphasize the need for standardized methodologies and nomenclature in future anatomical studies to enhance comparability and clinical applicability. Ultimately, improved anatomical knowledge of the pudendal nerve may contribute to better diagnostic accuracy and reduced risk of iatrogenic injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42909611What 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.