Peroneal nerve palsy caused by intraneural ganglion

Yamazaki, Hiroshi; Saitoh, Satoru; Seki, Hiroshi; Murakami, Narumichi; Misawa, Takuo; Takaoka, Kunio

doi:10.1007/s002560050473

Cited by 38 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4). 4,7,11,51,66,70,74,75,79,81,93,98,101,103,109,113,114,128,154,156,157,170,174,176 Most of these joint connections were found in publications that provided several MR images and some were seen based on 1 or 2 published images. In another 4 cases, the findings were suggestive of joint connections to the STFJ, but no connection could be definitively confirmed given the limitations and number and quality of the available images.…”

Section: Part 2 Mri Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraneural ganglion cysts: a systematic review and reinterpretation of the world's literature

Desy

Wang²,

Elshiekh

et al. 2016

JNS

111

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

615 Literature review J Neurosurg 125:615-630, 2016I ntraneural ganglion cysts are benign mucinous lesions that are formed within peripheral nerves and typically lead to symptoms and signs of peripheral neuropathy. Their pathogenesis has been controversial. Different treatments have been recommended. Outcomes have been disappointing and the recurrence rate high and underreported.Over the past 15 years, our group has provided substantial evidence to support a unifying articular (synovial) theory as the etiology for all intraneural ganglion cysts. In 2003, the senior author (R.J.S.) demonstrated that the prototypical intraneural cysts of the common peroneal nerve are joint derived. Cyst formation originates in the superior tibiofibular joint (STFJ) and propagates toward abbreviatioNs EMG = electromyography; NCS = nerve conduction studies; STFJ = superior tibiofibular joint. obJective The etiology of intraneural ganglion cysts has been controversial. In recent years, substantial evidence has been presented to support the articular (synovial) theory for their pathogenesis. The authors sought to 1) perform a systematic review of the world's literature on intraneural cysts, and 2) reinterpret available published MR images in articles by other authors to identify unrecognized joint connections. methods In Part 1, all cases were analyzed for demographic data, duration of symptoms, the presence of a history of trauma, whether electromyography or nerve conduction studies were performed, the type of imaging, surgical treatment, presence of a joint connection, intraneural cyst recurrence, and postoperative imaging. Two univariate analyses were completed: 1) to compare the proportion of intraneural ganglion cyst publications per decade and 2) to assess the number of recurrences from 1914 to 2003 compared with the years 2004-2015. Three multivariate regression models were used to identify risk factors for intraneural cyst recurrence. In Part 2, the authors analyzed all available published MR images and obtained MR images from selected cases in which joint connections were not identified by the original authors, specifically looking for unrecognized joint connections. Two univariate analyses were done: 1) to determine a possible association between the identification of a joint connection and obtaining an MRI and 2) to assess the number of joint connections reported from 1914 to 2003 compared with 2004 to 2015. resuLts In Part 1, 417 articles (645 patients) were selected for analysis. Joint connections were identified in 313 intraneural cysts (48%). Both intraneural ganglion cyst cases and cyst recurrences were more frequently reported since 2004 (statistically significant difference for both). There was a statistically significant association between cyst recurrence and percutaneous aspiration as well as failure to disconnect the articular branch or address the joint. In Part 2, the authors identified 43 examples of joint connections that initially went unrecognized: 27 based on their retrospective MR image reinterpretation o...

show abstract

Section: Part 2 Mri Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraneural ganglion cysts: a systematic review and reinterpretation of the world's literature

Desy

Wang²,

Elshiekh

et al. 2016

JNS

111

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various conditions may cause peroneal nerve palsy including trauma [2,3,4,5,6,7,8], repetitive mechani- cal irritation [2], iatrogenic injury [9], leprosy, hereditary neuropathy, and compression by soft tissue and osseous pathologies [1,3,10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peroneal nerve injury in three patients with knee trauma: MR imaging and correlation with anatomic findings in volunteers and anatomic specimens

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this article is to report on three patients with injuries of the peroneal nerve along the posterolateral aspect of the knee. Injuries in this area are less common than the injuries occurring at the level of the fibular head. In this article we report on three patients with posterolateral knee trauma who had peroneal nerve dysfunction. To better understand the precise location of the nerve on MR images, we performed MR imaging in five volunteers, and studied the position of the nerve on anatomic dissection ( n=1) and anatomic slices ( n=1). The common peroneal nerve is easily depicted on MR images and has a typical location along the posterior margin of the biceps tendon. Non-visualisation of the peroneal nerve at the posterolateral aspect of the knee, as seen on MR images, is consistent with nerve injury. Scar tissue at the posterolateral aspect of the knee indicates injury of this specific area, and involvement of the peroneal nerve is likely.

show abstract

“…Clinically, the patient reports symptoms of compression of the common peroneal nerve: pain in the anterolateral aspect of the leg and dorsum of foot; weakness of the muscles of the anterior compartment of the leg; and sometimes complete peroneal nerve palsy [7,8]. Sensory loss is usually less obvious than motor deficit.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%