Dear Editor,

We read with interest the article entitled “Observation and measurements of long thoracic nerve: a cadaver study and clinical consideration” by Wang et al. [2]. This is an important study regarding contributions of LTN and knowledge about their origins. There are some contradictions and confusing points in this article. It was to point out that “Different derivations of LTN were observed, and C4–7, C5–7, C5 and C7, C5–7, C5–8, C6 and C7, and branch from C6 was the most important components of LTN” [2] in the abstract section. But at the end of the result section “Branch from C6 was observed in all cadavers and thicker than those from C5 and C7” [2]. If this sentence was correct, derivation of C5 and C7 was wrong. Due to this, derivation could not involve C6. On the other hand at the beginning of the result section, six types of LTN were mentioned, but there are five types of the LTN in the Table 1. In addition, it was also stressed that “No absence of branch from C6 had been reported and it was certified by measurement data that C6 was more important than others in forming LTN in the present study” [2]. This also shows that C6 always contribute to LTN. Contributions from the C6 nerve root are common and constant, while the contributions from C5 and C7 cervical roots are more variable [1].

We recommend that “six types of LTN” stated in study of Wang et al. [2] is wrong and it should be changed with five types of LTN and type of “C5 and C7” should be omitted from abstract and from result sections.