4.2 Article

Microsurgical Anatomy of Lumbosacral Nerve Rootlets for Highly Selective Rhizotomy in Chronic Spinal Cord Injury

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ar.21213

Keywords

microsurgical anatomy; lumbosacral nerve rootlet; highly selective sacral rootlets rhizotomy; spinal cord injury

Funding

  1. China National Natural Science Fund [30672096]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is known that selective sacral roots rhizotomy is effective for relieving the neurogenic bladder associated with spinal cord injury. The goal of this study is to review the surgical anatomy of the lumbosacral nerve rootlets and to provide some morphological bases for highly selective sacral roots rhizotomy. Spinal cord dissections were performed on five cadavers under surgical microscope. At each spinal cord segment, we recorded the number, diameter and length of the rootlets, subbundles and bundles from the L1 to S2 spinal segments, and the length of the dorsal/ventral root entry zone. Peripheral nervous system myelin was examined by immunohistochemistry. We found: (1) the ventral or the dorsal root of the lumbosacral segment of the spinal cord was divided into one to three nerve bundles and each bundle was subdivided into one to three subbundles. Each subbundle further gave out two to three rootlets connected with the spinal cord; (2) there were no significant differences in the number of rootlets within the L1 to S2 segments, but the size of rootlets and the length of nerve roots varied (P < 0.05); and (3) the more myelinated fibers a rootlet contained, the larger transection area it had. The area of peripheral nervous system myelin positive cells and the total area of rootlets were correlated (P < 0.001). Thus, during highly selective sacral roots rhizotomy, the ventral and dorsal roots can be divided into several bundles of rootlets, and we could initially distinct the rootlets by their diameters. Anat Rec, 293:2123-2128, 2010. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available