Skip to main content

Intramuscular communicating branches in the flexor digitorum profundus: dissection and Sihler’s staining

Abstract

Purpose

This study was designed to clarify the anatomy of the intramuscular communicating branch (ICb) between the median and ulnar nerves in the flexor digitorum profundus (FDP), and morphologically demonstrate the location of connection.

Methods

Twenty Korean cadavers were dissected and a further 8 were subjected to modified Sihler’s staining to investigate the pattern of innervation of the ICb and the location of its communicating points in muscle.

Results

The median and ulnar nerves divided into small branches before entering FDP muscle. Of these small branches, one or two met inside the muscle. This communicating pattern could be classified into three types: type I, communicating branches in both the proximal and distal regions; type II, at least one communicating branch in the proximal region; type III, at least one communicating branch in the distal region. Of 20 dissected specimens, no case of type I was observed, but 3 cases of type II and 15 cases of type III were found. No ICbs at all were found in two of the dissected specimens. In eight stained specimens, one was classified as type I, two as type II, and five as type III. The proximal communicating branches were located at 34.1% from the interepicondylar line, inside the third muscle bundle. The distal communicating branches were located at 66.0% from the interepicondylar line, between third and fourth muscle bundles.

Conclusions

These findings could provide critical anatomical information regarding the nerve distribution of FDP focused on the ICbs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Bhadra N, Keith MW, Peckham PH (1999) Variations in innervations of the flexor digitorum profundus muscle. J Hand Surg Am 24:700–703

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Crutchfield CA, Gutmann L (1980) Hereditary aspects of median–ulnar nerve communications. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 43:53–55

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gruber W (1870) Über die Verbindung des Nervus medianus mit dem Nervus ulnaris am Unterarm des Menschen und der Sfiugetiere. Arch Anat Physiol 37:501–522

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lee KS, Oh CS, Chung IH, Sunwoo IN (2005) An anatomic study of the Martin–Gruber anastomosis: electrodiagnostic implications. Muscle Nerve 31:95–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liem RS, Douwe van Willigen J (1988) In toto staining and preservation of peripheral nervous tissue. Stain Technol 63:113–120

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lim AY, Pereira BP, Kumar VP, De CC, Taki CC, Baudet J, Merle M (2004) Intramuscular innervation of upper-limb skeletal muscles. Muscle Nerve 29:523–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Martin R (1763) Tal om Nervus allmamna Egenskaperi Mannisikans kropp. Lars Salvius, Stockholm (cited from Mannerfelt)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nakashima T (1993) An anatomic study on the Martin–Gruber anastomosis. Surg Radiol Anat 15:193–195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Oh CS, Won HS, Lee KS, Chung IH (2009) Origin of the radial nerve branch innervating the brachialis muscle. Clin Anat 22:495–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Oh CS, Won HS, Lee KS, Chung IH, Kim SM (2009) Anatomic variation of the innervations of the flexor digitorum profundus muscle and its clinical implications. Muscle Nerve 39:498–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Russell T (1994) Essentials of human anatomy, 9th edn. Oxford University Press, New York, p 142

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rodriguez-Niedenfuhr M, Vazquez T, Parkin I, Logan B, Sanudo JR (2002) Martin–Gruber anastomosis revisited. Clin Anat 15:129–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sarikcioglu L, Demirel BM (2006) Martin–Gruber and Marinacci communications—anatomic or physiologic consideration. J Hist Neurosci 15:99–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Segal RL, Catlin PA, Krauss EW, Merick KA, Robilotto JB (2002) Anatomical partitioning of three human forearm muscles. Cells Tissues Organs 170:183–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shu HS, Chantelot C, Oberlin C, Alnot JY, Shao H (1999) Martin–Gruber communicating branch: anatomical and histological study. Surg Radiol Anat 21:115–118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Standring S (2005) Gray’s anatomy, 39th edn. Chuchill Livingstone, New York, p 877

    Google Scholar 

  17. Standring S (2005) Gray’s anatomy, 39th edn. Churchill Livingstone, New York, p 1467

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sunderland S (1972) Nerves and nerve injuries. Churchill Livingstone, New York, Edinburgh, p 74

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (R13-2003-013-03001-0).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hee-Jin Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Won, SY., Choi, DY., Lee, JG. et al. Intramuscular communicating branches in the flexor digitorum profundus: dissection and Sihler’s staining. Surg Radiol Anat 32, 285–289 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-010-0634-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-010-0634-4

Keywords

  • Flexor digitorum profundus
  • Innervation
  • Communicating branches
  • Sihler’s staining