Deep gluteal syndrome is an increasingly recognized disease entity, caused by compression of the sciatic or pudendal nerve due to non-discogenic pelvic lesions. It includes the piriformis syndrome, the gemelli-obturator internus syndrome, the ischiofemoral impingement syndrome, and the proximal hamstring syndrome. The concept of the deep gluteal syndrome extends our understanding of posterior hip pain due to nerve entrapment beyond the traditional model of the piriformis syndrome. Nevertheless, there has been terminological confusion and the deep gluteal syndrome has often been undiagnosed or mistaken for other conditions. Careful history-taking, a physical examination including provocation tests, an electrodiagnostic study, and imaging are necessary for an accurate diagnosis. After excluding spinal lesions, MRI scans of the pelvis are helpful in diagnosing deep gluteal syndrome and identifying pathological conditions entrapping the nerves. It can be conservatively treated with multidisciplinary treatment including rest, the avoidance of provoking activities, medication, injections, and physiotherapy. Endoscopic or open surgical decompression is recommended in patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms after conservative treatment or in those who may have masses compressing the sciatic nerve. Many physicians remain unfamiliar with this syndrome and there is a lack of relevant literature. This comprehensive review aims to provide the latest information about the epidemiology, aetiology, pathology, clinical features, diagnosis, and treatment. Cite this article:
We examined the differences in post-operative
functional disability and patient satisfaction between 56 patients who
underwent a lumbar fusion at three or more levels for degenerative
disease (group I) and 69 patients, matched by age and gender, who
had undergone a one or two level fusion (group II). Their mean age
was 66 years (49 to 84) and the mean follow-up was 43 months (24
to 65). The mean pre-operative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual
analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and the mean post-operative
VAS were similar in both groups (p >
0.05), but post-operatively
the improvement in ODI was significantly less in group I (40.6%)
than in group II (49.5%) (p <
0.001). Of the ten ODI items, patients
in group I showed significant problems with lifting, sitting, standing,
and travelling (p <
0.05). The most significant differences in
the post-operative ODI were observed between patients who had undergone
fusion at four or more levels and those who had undergone fusion
at less than four levels (p = 0.005). The proportion of patients
who were satisfied with their operations was similar in groups I
and II (72.7% and 77.0%, respectively) (p = 0.668). The mean number
of fused levels was associated with the post-operative ODI (r =
0.266, p = 0.003), but not with the post-operative VAS or satisfaction
grade (p >
0.05). Post-operative functional disability was more
severe in those with a long-level lumbar fusion, particularly at
four or more levels, but patient satisfaction remained similar for
those with both long- and short-level fusions.
We reviewed 22 children with cubitus varus who had been treated by a reverse V osteotomy and fixation by cross-pinning and wiring. The mean pre-operative humeral-elbow-wrist angle was −16.9° (−25° to +9°) and at the latest follow-up it was +7.3° (−2° to +14°). No child had a lateral prominence greater than 5 mm after correction. An excellent result was achieved in 20 children and a good result in two. We believe that this osteotomy has the advantages of better inherent stability, the avoidance of a prominent lateral condyle after correction and firm fixation allowing early movement.
