Publication:
Intradural communication between dorsal rootlets of spinal nerves: their clinical significance

dc.contributor.coauthorSolmaz, Bilgehan
dc.contributor.coauthorTatarli, Necati
dc.contributor.coauthorCeylan, Davut
dc.contributor.departmentN/A
dc.contributor.kuauthorKeleş, Güven Evren
dc.contributor.kuauthorÇavdar, Safiye
dc.contributor.kuprofileFaculty Member
dc.contributor.kuprofileFaculty Member
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.yokidN/A
dc.contributor.yokid1995
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-10T00:07:34Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.description.abstractBackground Anatomical and surgical textbooks give almost no attention to the intradural communications between dorsal rootlets of adjacent spinal nerves. These communications can be of significance in various neurosurgical procedures and clinical conditions of the region. Methods The spinal cord of six formaldehyde-fixed cadavers was dissected from C1–S5. The dorsal rootlets of the spinal nerves were exposed via a posterior approach and communications between adjacent spinal nerves were documented. Results The frequency of communication between adjacent dorsal rootlets of the spinal nerves showed variations among spinal levels. Thirty-eight dorsal rootlet communications were observed in six cadavers (12 sides) and 20 (52.6 %) were at cervical levels, 14 (36.8 %) at thoracic levels, and four (10.5 %) at lumbar levels. The majority of communications were observed on the left side (65.8 %). Communications were most frequently observed at cervical (C4–C5, C5–C6) and upper thoracic (T1–T2) levels and seen least frequently at lower thoracic and lumbar levels. No communications were observed at sacral levels. Five types of communication were observed: I. oblique ascending, II. oblique descending III. short Y, IV. long Y and V shaped. None of the communication extended beyond one segment at any spinal level. The occurrence of such dorsal rootlet communications ranged from 3 to 7 for each cadaver and the mean was 4.8±1.3. Histological sections from various levels of the dorsal rootlet communications showed that all consisted of myelinated fibers of varying diameters. Conclusions Such communications may lead to misinterpretation of the pathology on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms and also should be considered in rhizotomy.
dc.description.indexedbyWoS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.issue6
dc.description.openaccessNO
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuN/A
dc.description.volume157
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00701-015-2425-5
dc.identifier.eissn0942-0940
dc.identifier.issn0001-6268
dc.identifier.quartileQ2
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84929704915
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-015-2425-5
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/16801
dc.identifier.wos354706200029
dc.keywordsCommunication
dc.keywordsDorsal rootlet
dc.keywordsVariations
dc.keywordsClinical significance
dc.keywords1st cervical nerve
dc.keywordsAccessory nerve
dc.keywordsBrachial-Plexus
dc.keywordsPosterior root
dc.keywordsIntersegmental anastomoses
dc.keywordsComputed-Tomography
dc.keywordsConnections
dc.keywordsElectromyography
dc.keywordsAnatomy
dc.keywordsBack
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.sourceActa Neurochirurgica
dc.subjectClinical neurology
dc.subjectSurgery
dc.titleIntradural communication between dorsal rootlets of spinal nerves: their clinical significance
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.authoridN/A
local.contributor.authorid0000-0002-8847-9882
local.contributor.kuauthorKeleş, Güven Evren
local.contributor.kuauthorÇavdar, Safiye

Files