Abstract
The prevalence of meralgia paresthetica (MP), which is caused by compression of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN), has been increasing over recent decades. Since guidelines and large-scale studies are lacking, there are substantial regional differences in diagnostics and management in MP care. Our study aims to report on current diagnostic and therapeutic strategies as well as time trends in clinical MP management in Germany. Patients hospitalized in Germany between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018, with MP as their primary diagnosis were identified using the International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) code G57.1 and standardized operations and procedures codes (OPS). A total of 5828 patients with MP were included. The rate of imaging studies increased from 44% in 2005 to 79% in 2018 (p < 0.001) and that of non-imaging diagnostic studies from 70 to 93% (p < 0.001). Among non-imaging diagnostics, the rates of evoked potentials and neurography increased from 20%/16% in 2005 to 36%/23% in 2018 (p < 0.001, respectively). Rates of surgical procedures for MP decreased from 53 to 37% (p < 0.001), while rates of non-surgical procedures increased from 23 to 30% (p < 0.001). The most frequent surgical interventions were decompressive procedures at a mean annual rate of 29% (± 5) throughout the study period, compared to a mean annual rate of 5% (± 2) for nerve transection procedures. Between 2005 and 2018, in-hospital MP care in Germany underwent significant changes. The rates of imaging, evoked potentials, neurography, and non-surgical management increased. The decompression of the LFCN was substantially more frequent than that of the LFCN transection, yet both types of intervention showed a substantial decrease in in-hospital prevalence over time.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Meralgia paresthetica (MP) is the compression syndrome of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) resulting in numbness and/or painful dysesthesia of the anterolateral thigh [1,2,3,4]. For a long time, it was considered a rare disease [5, 6], but, beginning in the 1990s, a substantial increase in its prevalence has been observed, most likely due to growing rates of obesity and diabetes mellitus (DM) [7,8,9].
In the absence of high-quality clinical trial data on MP, guidelines are lacking. Care for MP is determined predominantly by surgeon preference and experience [10, 11]. Most therapists agree that the diagnosis of MP is based primarily on clinical examination and patient history. To rule out a lumbar radiculopathy as a differential diagnosis, a spinal MRI is recommended. Neurophysiologic work-up may include LFCN conduction studies or somatosensory evoked potentials [12,13,14].
Treatment options include local injections, open neurolysis or neurectomy, and various neuro-modulative approaches [3, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. If surgical therapy is necessary, a variety of techniques exist. Some groups prefer decompressive techniques with nerve preservation or even transposition while others recommend neurectomy of the LFCN [26,27,28]. A recent meta-analysis found slightly superior pain relief and lower rates of revision procedures for neurectomy, compared to decompressive procedures [29].
Large-scale evidence on the choice of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities in MP is lacking. The assessment of current practice, potential variations, and time trends has never been performed. We designed a national study aiming to report current practice in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients hospitalized for MP in Germany and time trends between years 2005 and 2018.
Materials and methods
Study setting and data acquisition
In 2005, Germany had 82,437,995 inhabitants, compared to 83,019,213 in 2018 [10]. The German health system is mainly funded by the government. About one-third of all hospitals are run by private companies [11]. Data on all patients hospitalized in Germany between 2005 and 2018 with International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) code G57.1, which represents the diagnosis of MP, were provided by the German Federal Statistical Office (GFSO) for every 2nd year as well as 2018 and were included in the analysis. Ethical approval for this study was granted by local authorities (EA 1/275/20). Inclusion criteria were the main diagnosis of MP represented by the ICD code G57.1. Patients hospitalized with MP as their main diagnosis in years 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2018 entered the final analysis. The ICD10 main diagnosis refers to the diagnosis that is the cause for hospitalization. Procedures are coded according to the German operations and procedures codes (OPS). An unlimited number of procedures can be assigned to a single patient. Different chapters describe the procedure type, such as chapter 1—diagnostic procedures, chapter 3—imaging methods, chapter 5—surgical procedures, chapter 6—specific drug applications, chapter 8—nonsurgical therapeutic procedures, and chapter 9—additional procedures. Outpatient data on MP were not included in the analysis as they are not available through the GFSO.
Statistical analysis
Rates for diagnostics and procedures were calculated relative to patients hospitalized for MP. The presence of systematic time trends was investigated with the prop.trend.test-function. No adjustment for multiple testing was done. Rates of events in patients with MP are expressed as annual averages in % of patients hospitalized for the main diagnosis of MP. All analyses were performed with GraphPad Prism Version 8, IBM SPSS Statistics version 27, and R Version 4.0.0.
Results
A mean number of 729 (± 67.5) patients were hospitalized for MP in years 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2016, 2017, and 2018 in Germany, and a total of 5828 MP patients were included into our final analysis.
Trends in imaging diagnostics
The rate of imaging studies increased from 44 (n = 274) to 79% (n = 572) (p < 0.001), with a corresponding annual average of 62% (± 13) (Fig. 1). Throughout the entire study period, the mean rate of computed tomography diagnostics was 18% (± 3), compared to 37% (± 8) for magnetic resonance imaging. Trendwise, there was a slight increase in the rates of CT imaging, from 16% (n = 101) in 2005 to 22% (n = 160) in 2018 (p < 0.001), compared to a more pronounced increase in rates of MRI from 26 (n = 165) to 45% (n = 328) (p < 0.001) (Fig. 2). MRI of the spine was predominantly performed in our patient cohort, followed by MRI of the pelvis (Supplemental Table 1 presents a detailed depiction of CT and MRI imaging specificities).
Trends in non-imaging diagnostics
Among patients hospitalized for MP, the rate of non-imaging diagnostic studies increased from 70% (n = 434) in 2005 to 93% (n = 678) in 2018 (p < 0.001) with an annual average of 69% (± 11) (Fig. 1). The average annual rate of electrophysiological studies throughout the study period was 57% (± 9) (electroencephalography: 4% (± 1), neurography: 18% (± 3), electromyography: 9% (± 2), and evoked potentials: 27% (± 6)). Between 2005 and 2018, rates of evoked potentials and neurography procedures increased from 20%/16% (n = 125/n = 97) to 36%/23% (n = 261/n = 166) (p < 0.001, respectively). Rates of electromyography decreased from 11 (n = 69) to 8% (n = 56) (p = 0.009). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was first performed in 2013, at a rate of 1% (n = 5), increasing to 3% (n = 18) in 2018 (p < 0.001). The average annual prevalence of lumbar puncture in MP patients was 12% (± 1) without significant changes between 2005 (12%/n = 72) and 2018 (14%/n = 100) (p = 0.056) (Fig. 3).
Trends in MP treatment
The rates of in-hospital surgical procedures for MP decreased from 53% (n = 332) in 2005 to 37% (n = 243) in 2018 (mean 48% ± 9, p < 0.001), while non-surgical procedures (spinal and local injections, physiotherapy, electrotherapy) increased from 23 (n = 144) to 30% (n = 215) (mean 26% ± 4, p < 0.001). Additional therapies, such as the treatment of psychosomatic and psychic components of MP, increased from 0 (n = 0) to 6% (n = 40), with a mean annual rate of 1.3% (± 2; p < 0.001) (Fig. 1). Throughout the entire study period, the most frequent surgical interventions were decompressive procedures, with an annual average rate of 29% (± 5), but a decrease over time from 32% (n = 202) in 2005 to 22% (n = 159) in 2018 (p < 0.001). Rates of nerve transection procedures at the LFCN ranged substantially lower, at an annual average of 5% (± 2), and also showed a decreasing trend from 8 (n = 52) to 3% (n = 19) (p < 0.001). Neuro-modulative procedures were first performed for MP in 2011 at a rate of 0.7% (n = 6), increasing to 1.8% (n = 13) in 2018 (p < 0.001) (Fig. 4).
Discussion
This is the first comprehensive analysis of trends in diagnostics and treatment of MP on a national level. The main results are, that diagnostic procedures, both imaging and non-imaging, became more prevalent between 2005 and 2018, while rates of surgical treatment decreased over time, with neuropreservative surgical techniques being performed substantially more frequently than techniques of nerve transection.
The fact that, in Germany, health care professionals increasingly rely on imaging, evoked potentials, and neurography in the diagnosis of MP is especially interesting, since the diagnosis of MP is based first and foremost on clinical examination. Increasing rates of MRI may, in parts, be due to increased incentive to exclude lumbar radiculopathy, given that delayed or false diagnoses comprise about 30% of litigation claims in neurosurgery [30, 31]. Growing rates of MRI in MP diagnostics may also be due to the more widespread availability of MRI and improvements in nerve visualization. This trend could lead to even higher rates of MRI in MP management in the future [32,33,34,35,36]. The fact that rates of other diagnostics, such as LFCN conduction studies [7, 37, 38] and somatosensory evoked potentials, have also increased over time, may reflect increasingly robust evidence on their merits in MP diagnostics [12, 13]. For example, a study from 2006 found that changes in ipsilateral somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) after stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve showed good sensitivity and specificity (85.7% and 82.4%, respectively; accuracy, 83.3%) for MP without the need for bilateral comparisons [14].
Regarding trends in MP management, we found that rates of surgical procedures decreased. At the same time, rates of non-surgical treatments and additional procedures focussing on psychosomatic components increased. Decreasing rates of surgical therapy in MP may be explained by improved medical treatment, such as anti-neuropathic pain medication, which may allow patients and therapists to forgo surgery [39, 40]. Another reason may be that a certain proportion of MP surgery may increasingly take place in an ambulatory setup. For example, in other nerve compression syndromes, such as cubital tunnel syndrome, a trend toward outpatient surgical management has been reported [41, 42]. To date, no data on shifts in the management of MP from in-hospital to outpatient environments exist. Therefore, it is unclear how many additional patients are operated on in the outpatient setting. However, even if we cannot assess potential changes in total numbers, we do not expect the proportions of types of surgery to change.
Throughout the entire study period, surgical management of MP in Germany was conducted using neuropreservative techniques, such as decompression of the LFCN, rather than neurectomy procedures. In the ongoing discussion on which surgical strategy to choose, the most comprehensive meta-analysis had to rely on observational studies in the absence of randomized controlled data [29]. Similar to our findings, it reports that neurolysis was more common than neurectomy. Regarding outcomes, complete pain relief was achieved more often after neurectomy (85%) than decompression surgery (63%). These results are supported by two Cochrane meta-analyses, who report slightly higher rates of postoperative benefit after neurectomy (94%) than after decompression surgery (88%) [19, 20]. Surgeons preferring neurectomy over neurolysis frequently point to histopathological findings in the compressed nerve. These findings suggest focal demyelination, thickened perineurium, subperineurial edema, Renaut bodies, and regenerating clusters [43, 44]. One may argue that such morphological changes are irreversible and neurectomy may therefore represent a more effective surgical strategy in MP than neurolysis [44]. Findings in animal models suggest a relationship between the duration of symptoms and reversibility of ischemic damage to the nerve induced by compression, yet clinical data on the reversibility of histopathological changes in nerve compression syndromes in humans is missing [45, 46]. In a recent observational study, hypesthesia in the innervation area of the LFCN after neurectomy was described as not “bothersome,” as measured on a bothersomeness scale ranging from 0 to 6 [26]. However, a systematic analysis of the effect of anterolateral thigh hypesthesia based on the validated quality-of-life measures is still lacking. A recent description of a more extensive and dynamic decompression technique revealed excellent results in terms of improvement of pain and/or paresthesia (89%), complete restoration of sensory function (69%), and some sensory improvements (26%) [27]. Transposition is a technical variation, which was shown to improve outcomes of neurolysis of the LFCN [28].
Increases in rates of complementary treatment modalities for chronic pain, such as treatment of psychosomatic components, as observed in our analysis in Germany, may reflect changes in chronic pain management toward more holistic approaches. Nevertheless, reports for their particular benefits in MP are lacking [47,48,49].
A major strength of our study is that it allows for a comprehensive nationwide assessment across all disciplines involved in in-hospital MP care. However, our study has certain limitations. The fact that only data from Germany were included may limit the generalizability of our findings to healthcare systems in other countries. Also, the data set used was depersonalized, and therefore, distinct per-person analyses were not possible. Also, we cannot exclude the possibility of multiple inclusions per person. As mentioned above, patients treated in the outpatient sector were not included in our analysis, potentially introducing a certain degree of selection bias. However, surgical MP treatment in Germany is only rarely conducted in ambulatory facilities, and outpatient data on MP are not collected in a centralized system, unlike in-hospital data, which are more reliable in the assessment of treatment trends [42].
Conclusions
Between 2005 and 2018, MP care in Germany underwent significant changes. Rates of imaging, evoked potentials, neurography, and non-surgical management increased, while rates of surgical management decreased. Nerve transections for surgical treatment of MP were substantially less frequent than decompressive techniques.
Data Availability
Data is available on reasonable request.
References
Wartenberg R (1956) Meralgia paresthetica. Neurology 6(8):560–562. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.6.8.560
Hager W (1885) Neuralgia femoris. Resection des Nerv, cutan. femoris anterior externus. Dtsch Med Wochenschrift 11:218–219
Williams PH, Trzil KP (1991) Management of meralgia paresthetica. J Neurosurg 74(1):76–80. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1991.74.1.0076
Hanna A (2017) The lateral femoral cutaneous nerve canal. J Neurosurg 126(3):972–978. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.1.JNS152262
Streiffer RH (1986) Meralgia paresthetica. Am Fam Physician 33(3):141–144
Ecker AD (1985) Diagnosis of meralgia paresthetica. JAMA 253(7):976
Parisi TJ, Mandrekar J, Dyck PJ, Klein CJ (2011) Meralgia paresthetica: relation to obesity, advanced age, and diabetes mellitus. Neurology 77(16):1538–1542. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e318233b356
Ogurtsova K, da Rocha Fernandes JD, Huang Y et al (2017) IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates for the prevalence of diabetes for 2015 and 2040. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 128:40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2017.03.024
Flegal KM, Kruszon-Moran D, Carroll MD, Fryar CD, Ogden CL (2016) Trends in Obesity Among Adults in the United States, 2005 to 2014. JAMA 315(21):2284–2291. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.6458
Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis) GODb--. Bevölkerung: Deutschland, Stichtag. Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). Accessed 24.02.2022
Grunddaten der Krankenhäuser (2020) Fachserie 12 Reihe 6.1.1 -2018. 2120611187004. Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis)
Seror P (2004) Somatosensory evoked potentials for the electrodiagnosis of meralgia paresthetica. Muscle Nerve 29(2):309–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.10536
Seror P, Seror R (2006) Meralgia paresthetica: clinical and electrophysiological diagnosis in 120 cases. Muscle Nerve 33(5):650–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.20507
Caramelli R, Del Corso F, Schiavone V et al (2006) Proposal of a new criterion for electrodiagnosis of meralgia paresthetica by evoked potentials. J Clin Neurophysiol 23(5):482–485. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnp.0000214401.00968.29
Dureja GP, Gulaya V, Jayalakshmi TS, Mandal P (1995) Management of meralgia paresthetica: a multimodality regimen. Anesth Analg 80(5):1060–1061. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-199505000-00043
Haim A, Pritsch T, Ben-Galim P, Dekel S (2006) Meralgia paresthetica: a retrospective analysis of 79 patients evaluated and treated according to a standard algorithm. Acta Orthop 77(3):482–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670610046433
Ivins GK (2000) Meralgia paresthetica, the elusive diagnosis: clinical experience with 14 adult patients. Ann Surg 232(2):281–286. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200008000-00019
Prabhakar Y, Bahadur RA, Mohanty PR, Sharma S (1989) Meralgia paraesthetica. J Indian Med Assoc 87(6):140–141
Khalil N, Nicotra A, Rakowicz W (2008) Treatment for meralgia paraesthetica. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD004159. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004159.pub2
Khalil N, Nicotra A, Rakowicz W (2012) Treatment for meralgia paraesthetica. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD004159. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004159.pub3
Antoniadis G, Braun V, Rath S, Moese G, Richter HP (1995) [Meralgia paraesthetica and its surgical treatment]. Nervenarzt 66(8):614–7. Die Meralgia paraesthetica und ihre operative Behandlung.
Edelson R, Stevens P (1994) Meralgia paresthetica in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76(7):993–999. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199407000-00006
Ghai B, Dhiman D, Loganathan S (2018) Extended duration pulsed radiofrequency for the management of refractory meralgia paresthetica: a series of five cases. Korean J Pain 31(3):215–220. https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2018.31.3.215
Lee JJ, Sohn JH, Choi HJ et al (2016) Clinical efficacy of pulsed radiofrequency neuromodulation for intractable meralgia paresthetica. Pain Physician 19(3):173–179
Barna SA, Hu MM, Buxo C, Trella J, Cosgrove GR (2005) Spinal cord stimulation for treatment of meralgia paresthetica. Pain Physician 8(3):315–318
de Ruiter GC, Kloet A (2015) Comparison of effectiveness of different surgical treatments for meralgia paresthetica: results of a prospective observational study and protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 134:7–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.04.007
Malessy MJA, Eekhof J, Pondaag W (2018) Dynamic decompression of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve to treat meralgia paresthetica: technique and results. J Neurosurg 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.9.JNS182004
Hanna A (2018) Transposition of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve. J Neurosurg 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.8.JNS171120
Lu VM, Burks SS, Heath RN, Wolde T, Spinner RJ, Levi AD (2021) Meralgia paresthetica treated by injection, decompression, and neurectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of pain and operative outcomes. J Neurosurg 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.7.JNS202191
Mukherjee S, Pringle C, Crocker M (2014) A nine-year review of medicolegal claims in neurosurgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 96(4):266–270. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588414X13814021679834
Esemen Y, Mostofi A, Crocker MJN, Pereira EAC (2022) Why are neurosurgeons sued? A single-center, half-decade review. Br J Neurosurg 36(1):75–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2021.1973370
Baumer P, Weiler M, Bendszus M, Pham M (2015) Somatotopic fascicular organization of the human sciatic nerve demonstrated by MR neurography. Neurology 84(17):1782–1787. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000001526
Wolf M, Baumer P, Pedro M et al (2014) Sciatic nerve injury related to hip replacement surgery: imaging detection by MR neurography despite susceptibility artifacts. PLoS One 9(2):e89154. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089154
Stoll G, Wilder-Smith E, Bendszus M (2013) Imaging of the peripheral nervous system. Handb Clin Neurol 115:137–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52902-2.00008-4
Stoll G, Bendszus M, Perez J, Pham M (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging of the peripheral nervous system. J Neurol 256(7):1043–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-009-5064-z
Madhuranthakam AJ, Lenkinski RE (2015) Technical advancements in MR neurography. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 19(2):86–93. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1547370
Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Curtin LR (2010) Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999–2008. JAMA 303(3):235–241. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.2014
Yadav RL, Sharma D, Yadav PK et al (2016) Somatic neural alterations in non-diabetic obesity: a cross-sectional study. BMC Obes 3:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40608-016-0131-3
Attal N, Bouhassira D (2021) Advances in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Curr Opin Neurol 34(5):631–637. https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0000000000000980
Baron R, Binder A, Wasner G (2010) Neuropathic pain: diagnosis, pathophysiological mechanisms, and treatment. Lancet Neurol 9(8):807–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70143-5
Soltani AM, Best MJ, Francis CS, Allan BJ, Panthaki ZJ (2013) Trends in the surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome: an analysis of the national survey of ambulatory surgery database. J Hand Surg Am 38(8):1551–1556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.04.044
Adkinson JM, Zhong L, Aliu O, Chung KC (2015) Surgical treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome: trends and the influence of patient and surgeon characteristics. J Hand Surg Am 40(9):1824–1831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.05.009
Berini SE, Spinner RJ, Jentoft ME et al (2014) Chronic meralgia paresthetica and neurectomy: a clinical pathologic study. Neurology 82(17):1551–1555. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000000367
de Ruiter GCW, Lim J, Thomassen BJW, van Duinen SG (2019) Histopathologic changes inside the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve obtained from patients with persistent symptoms of meralgia paresthetica. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 161(2):263–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-018-3773-8
Jung J, Hahn P, Choi B, Mozaffar T, Gupta R (2014) Early surgical decompression restores neurovascular blood flow and ischemic parameters in an in vivo animal model of nerve compression injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(11):897–906. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.01116
Zhu D, Tapadia MD, Palispis W, Luu M, Wang W, Gupta R (2017) Attenuation of robust glial scar formation facilitates functional recovery in animal models of chronic nerve compression injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 99(24):e132. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.17.00396
Korwisi B, Barke A, Kharko A, Bruhin C, Locher C, Koechlin H (2021) Not really nice: a commentary on the recent version of NICE guidelines [NG193: chronic pain (primary and secondary) in over 16s: assessment of all chronic pain and management of chronic primary pain] by the Pain Net. Pain Rep. 6(4):e961. https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000961
Williams ACC, Fisher E, Hearn L, Eccleston C (2020) Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 8:CD007407. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007407.pub4
Leung A, Shirvalkar P, Chen R et al (2020) Transcranial magnetic stimulation for pain, headache, and comorbid depression: INS-NANS expert consensus panel review and recommendation. Neuromodulation 23(3):267–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/ner.13094
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Sabine Nemitz from the German Federal Office of Statistics for support and data handling.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. During the preparation of this manuscript, Nora F. Dengler received public body funding from the European Commission for the project Go Safe. No funding body had any role in the design of the current study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Benn Schönberg, Dörte Huscher, Mareen Pigorsch, and Nora F. Dengler. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Benn Schönberg and Nora F. Dengler, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin (EA 1/275/20).
Consent to participate
Consent to participate of individual patients was not obtained as only anonymized data was used in our manuscript.
Consent for publication
As no individual patient data is shown, no consent to publish was obtained.
Competing interests
Nora F. Dengler accepted speaker honoraria of Integra LifeSciences and serves as an advisor for Alexion Pharmaceuticals. Dörte Huscher received travel compensation from Shire. No funding bodies had any role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
10143_2023_1962_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Supplementary file1 Supplemental Table Total numbers of specific imaging locations. Total numbers of specific imaging locations are depicted for the respective years. Abbreviations: CT – computertomography, MRI – magnetic resonance image. (DOCX 20 KB)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Schönberg, B., Pigorsch, M., Huscher, D. et al. Diagnosis and treatment of meralgia paresthetica between 2005 and 2018: a national cohort study. Neurosurg Rev 46, 54 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-023-01962-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-023-01962-0