Evaluating the evidence: is neurolysis or neurectomy a better treatment for meralgia paresthetica?

Russell Payne, Scott Seaman, Emily Sieg, Sara Langan, Kimberly Harbaugh, Elias Rizk

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Meralgia paresthetica is a mononeuropathy of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LCFN). Surgical treatment involves transection or decompression of the LCFN. There is no clear consensus on the superiority of one technique over the other. We performed a systematic review of the literature to answer this question. Methods: Eligible studies included those that compared neurolysis versus neurectomy for the treatment of meralgia paresthetica after failure of conservative therapy. Our outcome of interest was resolution of symptoms. We performed a computerized search of MEDLINE (PubMed; all years) and of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies had to include the words “meralgia paresthetica” and “surgery.” All patients regardless of age were included, and there was no language restriction. We then reviewed the articles’ titles and abstracts. All studies that compared neurolysis to neurectomy were included in the analysis. Results: Of the studies identified, none were randomized controlled trials. There were two German language articles that were translated by a third researcher. Each study was evaluated by two independent researchers who assigned a level of evidence according to American Association of Neurologist algorithm and also performed data extraction (neurolysis vs. neurectomy and resolution of pain symptoms). Each study was found to be level four evidence. Conclusion: After reviewing the data, there was insufficient evidence to recommended one method of treatment over the other. This highlights the importance of keeping a national registry in order to compare outcomes between the two methods of treatment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)931-936
Number of pages6
JournalActa Neurochirurgica
Volume159
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2017

Fingerprint

Language
Research Personnel
Mononeuropathies
Femoral Nerve
Therapeutics
Decompression
PubMed
MEDLINE
Registries
Consensus
Randomized Controlled Trials
Pain
Skin
Meralgia paresthetica
Neurologists
Conservative Treatment

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Payne, Russell ; Seaman, Scott ; Sieg, Emily ; Langan, Sara ; Harbaugh, Kimberly ; Rizk, Elias. / Evaluating the evidence : is neurolysis or neurectomy a better treatment for meralgia paresthetica?. In: Acta Neurochirurgica. 2017 ; Vol. 159, No. 5. pp. 931-936.
@article{060cc71b3f60425fa528aa1003ed014b,
title = "Evaluating the evidence: is neurolysis or neurectomy a better treatment for meralgia paresthetica?",
abstract = "Background: Meralgia paresthetica is a mononeuropathy of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LCFN). Surgical treatment involves transection or decompression of the LCFN. There is no clear consensus on the superiority of one technique over the other. We performed a systematic review of the literature to answer this question. Methods: Eligible studies included those that compared neurolysis versus neurectomy for the treatment of meralgia paresthetica after failure of conservative therapy. Our outcome of interest was resolution of symptoms. We performed a computerized search of MEDLINE (PubMed; all years) and of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies had to include the words “meralgia paresthetica” and “surgery.” All patients regardless of age were included, and there was no language restriction. We then reviewed the articles’ titles and abstracts. All studies that compared neurolysis to neurectomy were included in the analysis. Results: Of the studies identified, none were randomized controlled trials. There were two German language articles that were translated by a third researcher. Each study was evaluated by two independent researchers who assigned a level of evidence according to American Association of Neurologist algorithm and also performed data extraction (neurolysis vs. neurectomy and resolution of pain symptoms). Each study was found to be level four evidence. Conclusion: After reviewing the data, there was insufficient evidence to recommended one method of treatment over the other. This highlights the importance of keeping a national registry in order to compare outcomes between the two methods of treatment.",
author = "Russell Payne and Scott Seaman and Emily Sieg and Sara Langan and Kimberly Harbaugh and Elias Rizk",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00701-017-3136-x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "159",
pages = "931--936",
journal = "Acta Neurochirurgica",
issn = "0001-6268",
publisher = "Springer Wien",
number = "5",

}

Evaluating the evidence : is neurolysis or neurectomy a better treatment for meralgia paresthetica? / Payne, Russell; Seaman, Scott; Sieg, Emily; Langan, Sara; Harbaugh, Kimberly; Rizk, Elias.

In: Acta Neurochirurgica, Vol. 159, No. 5, 01.05.2017, p. 931-936.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating the evidence

T2 - is neurolysis or neurectomy a better treatment for meralgia paresthetica?

AU - Payne, Russell

AU - Seaman, Scott

AU - Sieg, Emily

AU - Langan, Sara

AU - Harbaugh, Kimberly

AU - Rizk, Elias

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - Background: Meralgia paresthetica is a mononeuropathy of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LCFN). Surgical treatment involves transection or decompression of the LCFN. There is no clear consensus on the superiority of one technique over the other. We performed a systematic review of the literature to answer this question. Methods: Eligible studies included those that compared neurolysis versus neurectomy for the treatment of meralgia paresthetica after failure of conservative therapy. Our outcome of interest was resolution of symptoms. We performed a computerized search of MEDLINE (PubMed; all years) and of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies had to include the words “meralgia paresthetica” and “surgery.” All patients regardless of age were included, and there was no language restriction. We then reviewed the articles’ titles and abstracts. All studies that compared neurolysis to neurectomy were included in the analysis. Results: Of the studies identified, none were randomized controlled trials. There were two German language articles that were translated by a third researcher. Each study was evaluated by two independent researchers who assigned a level of evidence according to American Association of Neurologist algorithm and also performed data extraction (neurolysis vs. neurectomy and resolution of pain symptoms). Each study was found to be level four evidence. Conclusion: After reviewing the data, there was insufficient evidence to recommended one method of treatment over the other. This highlights the importance of keeping a national registry in order to compare outcomes between the two methods of treatment.

AB - Background: Meralgia paresthetica is a mononeuropathy of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LCFN). Surgical treatment involves transection or decompression of the LCFN. There is no clear consensus on the superiority of one technique over the other. We performed a systematic review of the literature to answer this question. Methods: Eligible studies included those that compared neurolysis versus neurectomy for the treatment of meralgia paresthetica after failure of conservative therapy. Our outcome of interest was resolution of symptoms. We performed a computerized search of MEDLINE (PubMed; all years) and of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies had to include the words “meralgia paresthetica” and “surgery.” All patients regardless of age were included, and there was no language restriction. We then reviewed the articles’ titles and abstracts. All studies that compared neurolysis to neurectomy were included in the analysis. Results: Of the studies identified, none were randomized controlled trials. There were two German language articles that were translated by a third researcher. Each study was evaluated by two independent researchers who assigned a level of evidence according to American Association of Neurologist algorithm and also performed data extraction (neurolysis vs. neurectomy and resolution of pain symptoms). Each study was found to be level four evidence. Conclusion: After reviewing the data, there was insufficient evidence to recommended one method of treatment over the other. This highlights the importance of keeping a national registry in order to compare outcomes between the two methods of treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014778064&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85014778064&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00701-017-3136-x

DO - 10.1007/s00701-017-3136-x

M3 - Review article

C2 - 28283866

AN - SCOPUS:85014778064

VL - 159

SP - 931

EP - 936

JO - Acta Neurochirurgica

JF - Acta Neurochirurgica

SN - 0001-6268

IS - 5

ER -