Mechanical Effects of a Specific Neurodynamic Mobilization of the Superficial Fibular Nerve: A Cadaveric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: A specific neurodynamic mobilization for the superficial fibular nerve (SFN) has been suggested in the reference literature for manual therapists to evaluate nerve mechanosensitivity in patients. However, no authors of biomechanical studies have examined the ability of this technique to produce nerve strain. Therefore, the mechanical specificity of this technique is not yet established. OBJECTIVES: To test whether this examination and treatment technique produced nerve strain in the fresh frozen cadaver and the contribution of each motion to total longitudinal strain. DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. SETTING: Laboratory. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): A differential variable reluctance transducer was inserted in 10 SFNs from 6 fresh cadavers to measure strain during the mobilization. A specific sequence of plantar flexion, ankle inversion, straight-leg raise position, and 30° of hip adduction was applied to the lower limb. The mobilization was repeated at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of the straight-leg raise position to measure the effect of hip-flexion position. RESULTS: Compared with a resting position, this neurodynamic mobilization produced a significant amount of strain in the SFN (7.93% ± 0.51%, P < .001). Plantar flexion (59.34% ± 25.82%) and ankle inversion (32.80% ± 21.41%) accounted for the biggest proportions of total strain during the mobilization. No difference was noted among different hip-flexion positions. Hip adduction did not significantly contribute to final strain (0.39% ± 10.42%, P > .05), although high variability among limbs existed. CONCLUSIONS: Ankle motion should be considered the most important factor during neurodynamic assessment of the SFN for distal entrapment. These results suggest that this technique produces sufficient strain in the SFN and could therefore be evaluated in vivo for correlation with mechanosensitivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".