Multidisciplinary Management of an Atypical Gigantic Sciatic Nerve Schwannoma: Case Presentation and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sciatic nerve schwannomas are rare benign tumors that can develop along the nerve's course, from the pelvis to the thigh. Giant schwannomas, defined as those exceeding 5 cm, are particularly rare and may alter the tumor's anatomical relationship with the nerve, impacting surgical strategy. METHODS: A PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review was conducted using the terms ("sciatic" AND "schwannoma") for publications from 2000 to October 2024. Of 166 identified articles, we excluded those lacking giant schwannoma cases or involving syndromic associations. We also report a novel case from our center. RESULTS: Our patient, a 35-year-old woman, presented with tingling and discomfort while sitting, localized to the left thigh, without radicular pain or motor deficits. MRI revealed a 14 × 7 cm mass. This is, to our knowledge, the first reported case of a giant solitary sciatic schwannoma of these dimensions located exclusively in the thigh, resected via intracapsular dissection with nerve monitoring, that was fully documented and reported. The review yielded 22 relevant articles, most involving pelvic or pelvic-thigh junction locations, with low recurrence rates. CONCLUSIONS: Giant sciatic schwannomas may be asymptomatic and slow-growing. This case is notable for tumor's location, large size, and successful nerve-sparing surgical outcome.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".