Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints

Jowita Jacewicz; Waldemar Sienkiewicz; Tomasz Burzykowski; Beata Degórska

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316379

. 2025 Jan 27;20(1):e0316379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316379

Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints

Jowita Jacewicz ^1,^*,^#, Waldemar Sienkiewicz ^2,^#, Tomasz Burzykowski ³, Beata Degórska ^1,^*,^#

Editor: Juan Fernando Vélez García⁴

PMCID: PMC11771925 PMID: 39869586

Abstract

The canine elbow joint is innervated by four nerves: the musculocutaneous, median, radial, and ulnar nerves. There is little data in the veterinary literature examining the course of the articular branches of those nerves. There is also no agreement as to their anatomical location in the joint capsule nor to their number. The lack of such data prompted us to undertake studies to analyze the course of these nerves and the number and location of their articular branches in both left and right joint capsules in 50 dogs (with a total of 100 joints). No within-individual differences in the number of branches or their location were found between left and right joints. There was between-joint variation in the number of articular branches of the median, musculocutaneous, and radial nerves. There was also variation in the location of the branches of the median and radial nerves. Some of the results are different from those previously reported in the literature. The obtained data allow to further detail anatomical descriptions of the dog elbow innervation. Additionally, they may constitute the basis for developing new surgical procedures, improving existing procedures, or allow a better preparation for possible differences during operations of this joint.

Introduction

The canine elbow joint is innervated by the musculocutaneous, median, radial, and ulnar nerves [1,3]. Staszczyk et al. [1] reported that the elbow joint capsule features aspects of multiple, variable, asymmetric, and segmental innervation. The joint capsule is innervated by periosteal nerve, fibers originating from the muscles, and fibers that are branches of the main nerves innervating the joint.

The radial nerve receives most of its fibers from the C7–T1 nerve [4–7]. It leaves the axilla and in the brachial part it runs caudal and parallel to the brachial artery, then between the long and medial heads of the triceps. After detaching branches to the triceps reaches the lateral aspect of the humerus, heading to cranial aspect of the elbow [4–6]. The nerve is divided into a deep and superficial branch before leaving the brachium. The deep branch (ramus profundus) supplies all of the extensor muscles of the carpus—extensor carpi radialis (m. extensor carpi radialis), supinator muscle (m. supinator) and the digitis -common and lateral digital extensor (m. extensor digitorum communis, m. extensor digitorum lateralis), abductor digiti I longus (m. abductor digiti I longus) and extensor digiti I longus et digiti II. Then the deep branch supplies the antebrachiocarpal joint. Superficial branch of the radial nerve (ramus superficialis) supplies cutaneous area around and distal to the lateral epicondyle of the humerus, skin of the proximal one-third to two-thirds of the lateral surface of the antebrachium, skin on the cranial surface of the antebrachium, also innervate the dorsum of the manus [3,4,8]. An area of skin innervated by only one nerve is called an autonomous zone. Reduced or absent nociception to the skin in an autonomous zone implicates dysfunction of a specific nerve. For the skin of the manus, the autonomous zone for the radial nerve is the skin over the dorsal surface of digits III, IV [9,10].

The median nerve (C8–T1) after its origin from the brachial plexus, runs down the medial surface of the brachium. It combines with the musculocutaneous nerve to form a ramus communicans cum n. mediano around the axillary artery. At the cranial aspect of the elbow joint, the median nerve passes to the medial collateral ligament before dipping under the pronator teres (m. pronator teres) and flexor carpi radialis muscles (m. flexor carpi radialis). In the distal part of the antebrachium it divides into two or more branches, which descend through the carpal canal to innervate most of the structures on the palmar aspect of the distal thoracic limb. Median nerve gives muscular branches to the pronator teres, pronator quadratus (m. pronator quadratus), flexor carpi radialis, flexor digitorum superficialis (m. flexor digitorum superficialis), radial head of the flexor digitorum profundus (m. flexor digitorum profundus caput radiale), deep part of the humeral head of the flexor digitorum profundus (m. flexor digitorum profundus caput humerale) [3,4,8]. The median nerve innervates the skin of the palmar surface of the metacarpus and fingers [3].

The ulnar nerve (C8–T1) [6,7] runs distally on the medial aspect of the antebrachium caudal to the median nerve and brachial artery. In the distal half of the brachium it seeks a more caudal course over the medial epicondyle of the humerus, running under the ulnar head of the ulnar flexor muscle to the ulnar groove on the caudal aspect of the antebrachium [5,6]. Ulnar nerve gives muscular branches to the flexor carpi ulnaris (m. flexor carpi ulnaris), flexor digitorum profundus, flexor digitorum superficialis, interosseus (mm. interossei) [3,8,11]. It supplies to the skin across the proximal portion of the antebrachium from the medial to the caudolateral aspects, branches to the skin of the distal part of antebrachium,proximal two-thirds of the skin of the caudolateral aspect of the antebrachium [3]. The main trunk of the ulnar nerve divides into dorsal and palmar branches in the distal half of the antebrachium. The dorsal branch innervates the skin on the lateropalmar aspect of the manus. The palmar branch crosses the carpus with the flexor tendons and median nerve to supply the palmar aspect of the manus [6]. The autonomous zone for the ulnar nerve is the skin over the lateral aspect of digit V [9,10].

The musculocutaneous nerve originates from C 7 [12]. The nerve arises from the brachial plexus. It runs parallel to the median nerve and detaches a communicating branch to it. In the proximal part of the humerus, musculocutaneous nerve gives muscular branches to the coracobrachialis (m. coracobrachialis) and biceps brachii (m. biceps brachii). In the distal third of the upper brachium, musculocutaneous nerve innervates the brachial muscle (m. brachialis) [3–6] and the skin on the medial aspect of the antebrachium [3,5,6]. The autonomous zone for the musculocutaneous nerve is the skin over the 2 cm distal to the medial epicondyle of the humerus [9,10].

There are few publications in the veterinary literature analyzing the course of the aforementioned nerves towards the capsule of the canine elbow joint. Of those available, several contain information about the articular branches of those nerves [1,2,13]. There is no consensus as to the anatomical location of the branches of individual nerves within the joint capsule nor their number. This article aims to expand the current knowledge regarding the innervation of the dog’s elbow.

Materials and methods

The aim of the study was to examine the course of all four nerves participating in the innervation of the canine elbow joint, determine their location within the joint capsule, and investigate the number of articular branches of individual nerves. Due to differences in breed and size of individuals, the diameter of the articular branches was not measured. The research was performed on isolated thoracic limbs of dogs that had previously been euthanized in veterinary clinics for reasons that excluded elbow joint diseases. Pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Act on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific or Educational Purposes, veterinary services and clinical veterinary tests are not experimental procedures and do not require the consent of the Ethics Committee. The examinations were carried out on isolated right and left thoracic limbs of 50 dogs (23 males and 27 females, from six to fifteen years of age, with 14 (28%) dogs aged 10 or younger) of 19 different breeds (see Table 1). The course of the four nerves innervating the dog elbow joint was analyzed by using a dissecting loupe with 2.5x magnification (Seliga Optical) and basic surgical instruments (tissue forceps, anatomical tweezers, blades, Metzenbaum scissors and a Gelpi retractor). Tissue preparation began on the medial side of the limb. After cutting the skin and fascia above the humeral head, the ulnar nerve was identified. It was dissected from the surrounding tissue dorsally and ventrally to the elbow joint capsule along the medial head of the triceps brachii muscle. At the level of the elbow joint, the nerve ran behind the condylus of the humerus, under the flexor digitorum superficialis muscle. Dissection of the median nerve began from the axillary region ventrally to the elbow joint capsule. In the shoulder area, the median nerve ran between the ulnar nerve and the musculocutaneous nerve. During the preparation, just above the elbow joint, ramus communicans cum n. mediano was found–a connection between the musculocutaneous and median nerves. The nerve was dissected into the joint capsule of the elbow in the area of the pronator teres muscle and the flexor carpi radialis muscle. The course of the musculocutaneous nerve was examined from the axillary region towards the ventral. The connection between the median nerve and the musculocutaneous nerve mentioned earlier facilitated the identification of this nerve. At the level of this connection, the nerve was isolated from the superficial brachial artery and surrounding tissues towards the elbow joint capsule. This nerve also gave off branches to the brachialis muscle. The radial nerve, in turn was searched for on the lateral side of the brachium. The nerve was dissected from the axillary region and then along the brachialis muscle towards the elbow joint. At the level of the joint, the nerve reached the cranial side, continuing along the extensor carpi radialis muscle.

Table 1. The breeds of dogs included in the examination, classified by size (based on dog’s actual weight).

Small, <10 kg (number of dogs)	Medium, 10–26 kg (number of dogs)	Large, 26+ kg (number of dogs)
Chihuahua (1)	Beagle (1)	American Staffordshire Terrier (1)
Maltese (2)	Cocker Spaniel (1)	Bernese Mountain Dog (1)
Pug (1)	Dachshund (1)	Dalmatian (1)
Shih Tzu (1)	French Bulldog (3)	German Shepherd (3)
Standard Poodle (1)	Mix (19)	Irish Setter (1)
West Highland White Terrier (1)		Labrador Retriever (1)
Yorkshire Terrier (1)		Pointer (1)
Mix (4)		Mix (4)

Open in a new tab

95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the proportion of joints containing a particular number of branches or for the proportion of branches in a particular location was estimated by assuming the multinomial distribution for matched pairs of categorical data [14] while taking into account the association between the outcomes for the left and right joint for each dog. The distribution of dogs in relation to the number of branches per joint were compared by using the exact version of Pearson’s chi-squared test [14].

Results

Ulnar nerve

During its course, the ulnar nerve was found to encircle the medial epicondyle of the humerus caudally. In all (100% of) the examined joints, the nerve sent one branch (see Table 2), always to the joint capsule of the elbow in its caudal medial part (Figs 1–3) after caudal retraction of the flexor carpi ulnaris muscle, between the olecranon and the medial epicondyle of the humerus, most often at ½ of the length just below the medial epicondyle.

Table 2. Number of articular branches of the nerves innervating the dog’s right and left elbow joint for the 50 examined dogs.

Left joint branches	Ulnar nerve			Musculocutaneous nerve			Median Nerve			Radial nerve
	Right joint branches			Right joint branches			Right joint branches			Right joint branches
	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3
1	50	0	0	10	0	0	20	0	0	33	0	0
2	0	0	0	0	39	0	0	19	0	0	10	0
3	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	11	0	0	7

Open in a new tab

Fig 3 — The graphic prepared by the author.

Median nerve

In both joints of 48 of the 50 examined dogs, i.e., in 96% (95% CI) [90.6%, 100%]) of the 100 examined joints, the median nerve presented articular branches between the pronator teres muscle and the flexor carpi radialis muscle, above the medial epicondyle, at its ½ length, reaching the medial quadrant of the joint capsule (Figs 4 and 5). In only two dogs, i.e., in 4% (95% CI [0%, 9.4%]) of the examined joints, these branches reached the medio-cranial segment of the joint capsule. Three patterns showing different number of articular branches of this nerve were observed, with the same number of branches in the left and right joint for any particular dog (see Table 2). Most often there was one articular branch, as observed in 40 (40%, 95% CI [26.4%, 53.6%]) of the examined joints. In 38 (38%, 95% CI [24.5%, 51.4%]) joints there were two branches, and three in 22 (22%, 95% CI [10.5%, 33.5%]) joints (Fig 6).

Fig 6 — The graphic prepared by the author.

The distribution of dogs in relation to the number of branches per joint was statistically significantly (p = 0.018) different for the two sexes (see Table 3). There was no statistically significant difference (see S1 and S2 Tables) by breed/size (p = 0.43) nor by age (younger or older than 11 years, p = 0.54).

Table 3. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint by sex.

(in brackets: p-values for the exact version of Pearson’s chi-squared test comparing the distribution for the sexes).

Sex	Musculocutaneous nerve [p = 0.72]			Median nerve [p = 0.018]			Radial nerve [p = 0.001]
	Number of branches			Number of branches			Number of branches
	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3
Female	6 (22.2%)	21 (77.8%)	0	7 (25.9%)	15 (55.6%)	5 (18,5%)	12 (44.4%)	9 (33.3%)	6 (22.2%)
Male	4 (17.4%)	18 (78.3%)	1 (4.3%)	13 (56.5%0	4 (17.4%)	6 (26.1%)	21 (91.3%)	1 (4.3%)	1 (4.3%)

Open in a new tab

Musculocutaneous nerve

Along the its course, the nerve presented articular branches on the medio-cranial side of the elbow joint capsule under the brachialis muscle (Figs 7 and 8) in all (100% of) the examined joints. Three patterns showing different number of articular branches of this nerve were observed, with the same number of branches in the left and right joint for any particular dog (see Table 2). In 20 (20%, 95% CI [8.9%, 31.1%]) of the examined joints there was one direct branch to the elbow joint capsule. In 78 (78%, 95% CI [66.5%, 89.5%]) of the cases the nerve was divided into two branches. Three branches of the musculocutaneous nerve were observed in one individual dog (Fig 9), i.e., in two joints (2%, 95% CI [0%, 5.9%]).

Fig 9 — The graphic prepared by the author.

There was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.72) in the distribution of dogs in relation to the number of branches per joint for the two sexes (see Table 3). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference (see S3 and S4 Tables) by breed/size (p = 0.17) nor by age (p = 0.58).

Radial nerve

The radial nerve transmitted articular branches to the cranial quadrant of the capsule, between the extensor carpi radialis and the common digital extensor muscles (musculus extensor digitorum communis) (Fig 10), in both joints of 40 dogs, i.e., in 80% (95% CI [68.9%, 91.1%]) of the examined joints. In the remaining 10 dogs, i.e., 20% (95% CI [8.9%, 31.1%]) of the joints, the branches reached the craniolateral area of the joint capsule. During preparation, three patterns were observed showing the articular branches of the radial nerve reaching the elbow joint capsule, with the same number of branches in the left and right joint for any particular dog (see Table 2). In 66 (66%, 95% CI [52.9%, 79.1%]) of the examined joints, there was one main branch of the radial nerve just above the humeroradial joint; in 20 (20%, 95% CI [8.9%, 31.1%]) joints there were two branches; and in 14 (14%, 95% CI [4.4%, 23.6%]) there were three articular branches of the radial nerve (Fig 11).

Fig 11 — The graphic prepared by the author.

The number of dogs in relation to the number of branches per joint was statistically significantly (p = 0.001) different for the two sexes (see Table 3). There was no statistically significant difference (see S5 and S6 Tables) by breed/size (p = 0.12) nor by age (p = 0.91).

Discussion

The location of the articular branches within the joint capsule and their number were described by Staszyk et al. [1] and ten years later by Yilmaz and Bahadir [2]. The former evaluated 19 thoracic limbs of 11 dogs, the latter provided findings for 10 thoracic limbs of five Turkish Shepherd dogs. Table 4 presents the summary of the results reported in Yilmaz and Bahadir’s study [2]. It is not possible to present such a summary for the results reported in Staszyk’s study [1] due to the limited information provided in that publication.

Table 4. Number of articular branches of the nerves innervating the dog’s right and left elbow joint for five Turkish Shepherd dogs examined in [2].

Left joint branches	Ulnar			Musculocutaneous			Median			Radial
	Right joint branches			Right joint branches			Right joint branches			Right joint branches
	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3
1	3	0	0	2	0	0	5	0	0	4	0	0
2	2	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Open in a new tab

In older publications, the location of the articular branches of the ulnar nerve was described in the caudal [15] or caudomedial [16] part of the joint capsule between the trochlea humeri and the olecranon. According to more recent data, the ulnar nerve in dogs sends articular branches to the medial area of the elbow joint capsule [1,2,11], located in its central part, between the trochlea of the humerus and the olecranon and between the ulnar head of the flexor carpi ulnaris muscle and the superficial digital flexor. In results reported in Yilmaz and Bahadir’s study [2] the nerve usually give off one (80% of the examined limbs) or two (20% of the examined limbs) articular branches (see Tables 4 and 5). In our study, the ulnar nerve was found, as reported in Staszyk’s study [1], to always give off one articular branch (see Tables 2 and 5) in a similar location (see Table 6) to that specified in [1] and [2].

Table 5. Percentages (with 95% confidence intervals) of joints with a particular number of articular branches of the nerves reported in [1] and [2] and observed in the current study.

Nerve	Branches	Ref [1]^*	Ref [2]^**	Current study
Ulnar	1	100%	80% [58.5%, 100%]	100%
	2		20% [0%, 41.5%]
	3
Median	1	100%	100%	40% [26.4%, 53.6%]
	2			38% [24.5%, 51.4%]
	3			22% [10.5%, 33.5%]
Musculocutaneous	1	16%	50% [10.8%, 89.2%]	20% [8.9%, 31.1%]
	2	84%	50% [10.8%, 89.2%]	78% [66.5%, 89.5%]
	3			2% [0%, 5.9%]
Radial	1	60%	80% [44.9%, 100%]	66% [52.9%, 79.1%]
	2	40%	20% [0%, 55.1%]	20% [8.9%, 31.1%]
	3			14% [4.4%, 23.6%]

Open in a new tab

* For [1], confidence intervals cannot be provided because of the lack of the necessary data

** For [2], confidence intervals were computed based on the data in Table 4.

Table 6. Percentages (with 95% confidence intervals) of joints with branches reaching a particular location reported in [1] and [2] and observed in the current study.

Nerve	Location	Ref [1]^*	Ref [2]^**	Current study
Ulnar	medial	100%	80% [58.5%, 100%]	100%
	caudo-medial		20% [0%, 41.5%]
Median	cranio-medial		10% [0%, 27.5%]	4% [0%, 9.4%]
	medial			96% [90.6%, 100%]
	cranial	100%	90% [72.5%, 100%]
Musculocutaneous	cranial	100%	100%
	cranio-medial			100%
Radial	cranial	cranial	10% [0%, 27.5%]	80% [68.9%, 91.1%]
	cranio-lateral		90% [72.5%, 100%]	20% [8.9%, 31.1%]

Open in a new tab

* For [1], confidence intervals cannot be provided because of the lack of the necessary data

** For [2], confidence intervals were computed based on the data provided in [1].

The median nerve runs along the medial surface of the brachium towards the condylus humeri. This nerve reaches the pronator teres muscle and continues caudally to the group of antebrachium flexor muscles. According to results reported in Staszyk,Yilmaz and Bahadir, Hermanson’s study[1–3], the median nerve gives rise to one articular branch (see Tables 4 and 5). According to Hermanson et al. [3], it is located in the medial part of the elbow capsule. However, Staszyk et al. [1] and Yilmaz and Bahadir [2] describe the intra-articular branch reaching the cranial segment of the joint capsule. Additionally, Yilmaz and Bahadir [2] found the articular branches of the nerve reach the craniomedial part of the joint capsule in one (10%) of the 10 examined joints (see Table 6). In our study, the nerve was found in the medial section of the joint capsule in 96% of the joints (see Table 6). There was variability in the number of branches per joint: one branch was found in 40%, two branches in 38%, and three branches in 22% of the examined joints (see Tables 2 and 5).

The musculocutaneous nerve, upon reaching the distal, medial part of the biceps brachii muscle, divided into the distal muscular branch of the nerve (called the nerve to brachialis muscle) and a small medial cutaneous nerve of the thoracic limb. There is no consensus in the literature regarding the articular branches of the musculocutaneous nerve. As an example of such differences, we find that the 3^rd edition of Miller’s Atlas of Anatomy reports that the articular branch comes from the distal muscular branch of the musculocutaneous nerve [17]. But the latest, 5^th edition, of this atlas states that the branch comes from the medial cutaneous nerve of the antebrachium [3]. There is also information about one articular branch of the nerve in the craniolateral part of the elbow joint capsule. According to Staszyk et al.[1] and Yilmaz and Bahadir [2], the articular branches usually reach the cranial area of the elbow joint capsule (see Table 6), slightly lateral and proximal to the biceps tendon. In the examined preparations, we observed all (100% of) articular branches of this nerve in the craniomedial part of the elbow joint capsule (see Table 6). Staszyk et al. [1] observed that direct articular branches of this nerve were rare (in 3 out of 19 isolated limbs). In most cases (84%), the branches of the musculocutaneous nerve formed two or three secondary branches (see Table 5). In turn, Yilmaz and Bahadir [2] found one direct branch to the joint capsule occurring in half of the examined limbs, while two secondary branches were isolated in the remaining half of the joints (see Tables 4 and 5). In our study, the musculocutaneous nerve gave one direct branch to the capsule of the elbow joint in 20 (20%) of the 100 examined joints; in 78 (78%) of the joints the nerve was divided into two branches; and it was divided in three branches in only two (2%) joints (see Tables 2 and 5).

After reaching the lateral head of the triceps muscle (m. triceps brachii, caput laterale), the radial nerve branches into deep and superficial branches. In available sources, only one, the deep branch of the radial nerve, gave an articular branch. Miller’s Anatomical Atlas [17] shows that when the deep branch crosses the flexor surface of the elbow joint, it sends the articular branch to the craniolateral surface of the joint. Yilmaz and Bahadir [2] found that the radial nerve usually (in 90% of the examined 10 joints) supplied the craniolateral part of the joint capsule. Only in 10% of cases (one joint) the nerve gave off one articular branch ultimately innervating the cranial area of the joint capsule [2]. In our study, the radial nerve supplied the cranial area of the capsule of the elbow joint in 80% of the examined joints, and in the remaining 20% it supplied the craniolateral part (see Table 6). In results reported in Staszyk et al. [1], Yilmaz and Bahadir’s study [2], the branches opened into the capsule of the dog’s elbow joint proximally or distally to the annular ligament.

The reported number of articular branches of the nerve varies in the literature. According to Yilmaz and Bahadir [2], in 80% (8 of the 10 examined elbow joints) of cases, the nerve gives off one articular branch, and in 20% two articular branches (see Tables 4 and 5). In macroscopic studies conducted by Staszyk et al. [1], one articular branch was observed in 60% and two articular branches in 40% of joints (see Table 5). In our study (see Tables 2 and 5), we found that the nerve gave off mainly (66% of the 100 examined joints) one branch, with two branches observed in 20 (20%) of the examined joints, and three in 14 (14%) of the joints. When the nerve gave off more than one branch, one of them was stronger.

The results of the macroscopic examinations confirm that the dog’s elbow joint is innervated by the ulnar, median, radial, and musculocutaneous nerves. We did not observe differences between the left and right joints of a given individual with respect to the number (see Table 2) and location of the articular branches. This is in contrast to the results reported in Yilmaz and Bahadir’s study [2], where some within-individual differences were observed (see Table 4).

Taking into account the precision of the estimated percentages, the distribution of the locations of the articular branches of the ulnar nerve, observed in our study, was comparable (see Table 6) to those reported in Staszyk et al. [1],Yilmaz and Bahadir’s study [2]. For the median nerve, we found the articular branches of this nerve mainly (96%) in the medial quadrant of the joint capsule. This is in line with what was described in Hermanson [3], but in contrast to Staszyk, Yilmaz and Bahadir’s study [1,2], where the authors indicated mainly cranial location (see Table 6). For the musculocutaneous nerve, we observed 100% of branches in cranio-medial location, while Yilmaz and Bahadir [2] reported 100% branches in cranial location. Finally, in our study, branches of the radial nerve were mainly (80%) found in craniolateral location, while Yilmaz and Bahadir [2] reported that location in only 10% of the cases (see Table 6).

Regarding the number of articular branches per joint, the results obtained in our study (see Table 5) for the ulnar and musculocutaneous nerve are comparable, when taking into account the precision of the estimated percentages, to those published in the literature. For the radial nerve, our results suggest, unlike in Staszyk, Yilmaz and Bahadir [1,2], the possibility of a non-zero (4.4% to 23.6%; see Table 5) fraction of joints with three branches. The most substantial difference, as compared to Staszyk, Yilmaz and Bahadir [1,2], was noted for the median nerve, for which our study indicates that the fraction of joints with one branch may be between 26.4% and 53.6% rather than 100% (see Table 5); moreover, there may be 24.5% to 51.4% of joints with two branches and 10.5% to 33.5% joints with three branches.

The source of these differences is unclear; it may be, for instance, the different mix of breeds included in our study, as compared to Staszyk,Yilmaz and Bahadir [1,2].

Interestingly, we found a statistically significant difference in the number of dogs in relation to the number of branches per joint for sex for the median (p = 0.018) and radial (p = 0.001) nerves. In both cases, there was a substantially larger proportion of male dogs with only one branch per nerve as compared to females. No such differences were reported previously in the literature. To rule out the play of chance, the finding should be validated in an independent study. We did not find any statistically significant difference in the distribution of dogs in relation to the number of branches per joint for breed/size or age.

It is worth noting that our research was carried out on the right and left elbow joints of 50 individuals, i.e., using 100 joints in total. The studies by Staszyk et al. [1] and Yilmaz and Bahadir [2] were conducted on much smaller groups including,11 dogs (19 joints in total) and 5 dogs (10 joints in total), respectively. As a result, the level of precision achieved in our study is higher as compared to the two other studies, as can be seen from the narrower confidence intervals provided in Tables 5 and 6 for our estimates. We believe that the reported, more precise results expand the knowledge about the innervation of the dog’s elbow joint, which may be useful in further clinical research, especially in the field of surgical procedures.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint for the median nerve by breed/size.

(PDF)

pone.0316379.s001.pdf^{(32.5KB, pdf)}

S2 Table. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint for the median nerve by age.

(PDF)

pone.0316379.s002.pdf^{(30.8KB, pdf)}

S3 Table. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint for the musculocutaneous nerve by breed/size.

(PDF)

pone.0316379.s003.pdf^{(32.6KB, pdf)}

S4 Table. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint for the musculocutaneous nerve by age.

(PDF)

pone.0316379.s004.pdf^{(30.7KB, pdf)}

S5 Table. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint for the radial nerve by breed/size.

(PDF)

pone.0316379.s005.pdf^{(32.4KB, pdf)}

S6 Table. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint for the radial nerve by age.

(PDF)

pone.0316379.s006.pdf^{(30.7KB, pdf)}

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all who have contributed to the study conducted.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Staszyk C. Zur Innervation der Schulter-und Ellbogengelenkkapsel des Hundes:Die Ursprünge von Rami articulares und die intrakapsulare Verteilung von Nervenfasern [dissertation]. Hannover .1999.
2.Yilmaz B, Bahadir A. Nerves innervating articular capsule of elbow joints in turkish shepherd dogs (Karabas- Kangal). Curly sheep and native hair goats: an anatomic study. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 2009; 15 (6): 835–840. [Google Scholar]
3.Hermanson JW, de Lahunta AEvans HE. Miller and Evans’ Anatomy of the dog. 5th ed. St. Louis. Elsevier; 2020. [Google Scholar]
4.Konig HE., Liebich HC. Veterinary Anatomy of Domestic Mammals.Textbook and Colour Atlas. 6th ed. Schattauer, Stuttgart; 2014. [Google Scholar]
5.Konig HE, Liebich HG. Veterinary anatomy of domestic animals. Textbook and color atlas. 7 th ed. Thieme; 2020. [Google Scholar]
6.Baljit S, Dyce, Sack, and Wensing’s textbook of veterinary anatomy. 5 th ed. Elsevier; 2018. [Google Scholar]
7.Lambertini C, De Silva M, Grandis A, Martorelli M, Romagnoli N.Update on the anatomy of the brachial plexus in dogs: Body weight correlation and contralateral comparison in a cadaveric study. PLOS ONE. 2023;18(2): e0282179. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Mahler SP, Adogwa AO. Anatomical and experimental studies of brachial plexus, sciatic, and femoral nerve-location using peripheral nerve stimulation in the dog. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia.2008; 35(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2995.2007.00356.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Orsini JA, Grenager NS, De Lahunta A. Comparative veterinary anatomy: a clinical approach. Academic Press;2022. [Google Scholar]
10.Bailey CS, Kitchell RL. Cutaneous sensory testing in the dog. J Vet Intern Med 1987;1:128–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Sharp JW, Bailey CS, Johson RD, Kitchell RL. Spinal Nerve Root Origin of the Median, Ulnar and Musculocutaneous Nerves and their Muscle Nerve Branches to the Canine Forelimb. Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series C. 1990;19(4):359–368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Skelding A, Valverde A, Sinclair M, Thomason J, Moens N. Anatomical characterization of the brachial plexus in dog cadavers and comparison of three blind techniques for blockade. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia; 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2017.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Zamprogno H, Hash J, Hulse D A, Lascelles BDX. Elbow denervation in dogs: Development of an in vivo surgical procedure and pilot testing. The Veterinary Journal. 2011; 190(2): 220–224. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.10.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. 2 nd ed. Hoboken NJ: Wiley; 2002. [Google Scholar]
15.Anderson WD, Anderson BG. Atlas of Canine Anatomy. Baltimore:Verlag Lea and Febiger; 1994. [Google Scholar]
16.Gardner E. The innervation of the shoulder joint. Anat Rec. 1948; 102:1–18. doi: 10.1002/ar.1091020102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Kitchell RL, Evans HE. The Spinal Nerves. In, HE Evans (Ed): Miller’s Anatomy of the Dog. 3 rd ed.Philadelphia, London:W.B. Saunders. 1993:829–893. [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316379.r001

Decision Letter 0

Juan Fernando Vélez García

12 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-21054Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jacewicz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan Fernando Vélez García

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[Warsaw University of Life Science].

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors, based on the reviewers, the manuscript should be improved with minor revisions. Please review each comment of the reviewers and answer them. The manuscript should be improved with more references in the introduction and discussion sections. Use the last edition of the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria. The figures to support your results should be better. Please improve your photographs and schemes so that your article can be published well to our readers.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the manuscript entitled “Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints” the Authors describe the course of musculocutaneous, median, radial and ulnar nerves which innervate the elbow joint. The data is gathered from appropriately large group of 50 dogs. The Authors describe the location of the nerve branches, which may contribute to improve surgical procedures on elbow joint in the future.

However, as the reviewer I have a several comments:

- The introduction is quite modest in the description of the studied nerves. In my opinion the description of the nerves should be developed with an indication of their sensory and motor functions, which would shed a light on the significance of these nerves and the study itself.

- In line 86, 151, 278… “The distribution of dogs with a different number…” may be understood that the dogs which have a different number of branches per joint are distributed differently than dogs without different number of branches… The Authors should consider changing the sentence. For example… The distribution/number of dogs in relation to the number of branches per joint…

- It should be pointed if the Figures are of own authorship, otherwise the source should be added

- In Fig.3. there should be a legend or description that a red line demonstrates the nerve

- In Figs 6, 9 and 11. same as above… the nerve branches should be marked

- Line 104… the abbreviation CI is not explained as confidence interval

- The statistical results of chi2 test should be presented in the table 3

- In lines 168 or 203 etc. I wound consider changing phrases like “results reported in [2]” into “results reported in Yilmaz and Bahadir’s study”

- In table 6, in one of the table column, there is untranslated fragment of the text

- In line 288, “respectively” is not necessary

- The References are not prepared in accordance to the PLOS ONE Submission Guidelines

Taking into account the above comments, in my opinion the article entitled: “Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints” is suitable for publishing in PLOS ONE after minor revision.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors

The manuscript submitted for review, entitled. "Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints" is written in understandable (not only for anatomists) language, and the issues raised are sure to interest not only specialists in the field. I have a few minor comments of an editorial nature. Please remove the period at the end of the title. Please remove the abbreviation "lat" throughout the manuscript (e.g. extensor carpi radialis muscle (lat: m. extensor carpi radialis) next to the names of anatomical structures-it is unnecessary. Please, next to the name in English write the name in Latin, the reader will know that it is Latin because it is given in italics. Table 6, column 3 - please translate Polish into English. I think that a weakness of this experience is a very modest list of publications to which the authors referred in preparing this manuscript. I think that after submitting a revised version of the manuscript and supplementing the literature section with new items, the work will be even more interesting.

Regards

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jan 27;20(1):e0316379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316379.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

27 Sep 2024

We appreciate reviewer’s comments. Thank you for your time and effort.

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Reviewer #1:

Corrections have been made to indicate the functions of motor and sensory nerves.

The sentences have been modified.

- It should be pointed if the Figures are of own authorship, otherwise the source should be added

Photo sources have been added.

- In Fig.3. there should be a legend or description that a red line demonstrates the nerve

- In Figs 6, 9 and 11. same as above… the nerve branches should be marked

A legend has been prepared for the diagrams provided.

- Line 104… the abbreviation CI is not explained as confidence interval

This part was corrected.

- The statistical results of chi2 test should be presented in the table 3

This part was corrected.

- In lines 168 or 203 etc. I wound consider changing phrases like “results reported in [2]” into “results reported in Yilmaz and Bahadir’s study”

These parts have been modified

- In table 6, in one of the table column, there is untranslated fragment of the text

We translated that fragment of the text.

- In line 288, “respectively” is not necessary

The term has been removed.

- The References are not prepared in accordance to the PLOS ONE Submission Guidelines

This part was corrected.

Reviewer #2

Please remove the period at the end of the title.

This part was corrected.

Please remove the abbreviation "lat" throughout the manuscript (e.g. extensor carpi radialis muscle (lat: m. extensor carpi radialis) next to the names of anatomical structures-it is unnecessary. Please, next to the name in English write the name in Latin, the reader will know that it is Latin because it is given in italics.

All manuscript was modified.

Table 6, column 3 - please translate Polish into English.

We translated that fragment of the text.

I think that a weakness of this experience is a very modest list of publications to which the authors referred in preparing this manuscript.

One of the main motives of our research was the significantly small amount of literature data on the innervation of the canine elbow joint. This also affects the bibliography of the work. After receiving the reviews, we added several literature items to make the work more interesting.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0316379.s007.docx^{(8.2KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316379.r003

Decision Letter 1

Juan Fernando Vélez García

16 Oct 2024

PONE-D-24-21054R1Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jacewicz,

The introduction information should include the description of the branches of each nerve to the elbow joint. Hermanson et al. (2020) describe the innervation to the elbow joint and include excellent figures of these branches. You can include a better introduction and review more recent references in veterinary anatomy and studies about locoregional blocks and surgeries involving the nerves. The redaction in English and Latin should improve. Your redaction does not agree with the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria, for example, you use terms that are not used in the thoracic limb, such as forelimb, foreleg, forepaw, ventral, behind, ulnar loop, and olecranon process. I recommend reviewing your redaction by an English native colleague. I recommend below more recent references that could be included to improve the introduction and discussion of your article. Among them, you can review these:

Konig, H. E., & Liebich, H. G. (2020). Veterinary anatomy of domestic animals. Textbook and color atlas.
Baljit Singh, B. S. (2017). Dyce, Sack, and Wensing's textbook of veterinary anatomy (No. Ed. 5, pp. 872-pp).
Orsini, J. A., Grenager, N. S., & De Lahunta, A. (Eds.). (2021). Comparative veterinary anatomy: a clinical approach. Academic Press.

If you use the Latin name of the NAV between parenthesis you do not need to include at the second time. E.g.: The nerve was dissected from the axillary region and then along the brachialis muscle towards the elbow joint. At the joint level, the nerve reaches the cranial side, continuing along the extensor carpi radialis muscle (m. extensor carpi radialis). The radial nerve transmitted articular branches to the cranial quadrant of the capsule, between the extensor carpi radialis muscle (From here is not necessary to include the Latin name for this muscle) and the common digital extensor (m. extensor digitorum communis).

-I recommend changing the color of the nerve from red to yellow since this later is the most used in the anatomy veterinary textbooks (Figures 3, 6, 9, 11). The red is used to arteries. The photographs of the figures are blurred (Figures 2, 5, 7, 8, 10).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 30 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan Fernando Vélez García

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

1. Konig, H. E., & Liebich, H. G. (2020). Veterinary anatomy of domestic animals. Textbook and color atlas.

2. Baljit Singh, B. S. (2017). Dyce, Sack, and Wensing's textbook of veterinary anatomy (No. Ed. 5, pp. 872-pp).

3. Orsini, J. A., Grenager, N. S., & De Lahunta, A. (Eds.). (2021). Comparative veterinary anatomy: a clinical approach. Academic Press.

If you use the Latin name of the NAV between parenthesis you do not need to include at the second time. E.g.: The nerve was dissected from the axillary region and then along the brachialis muscle towards the elbow joint. At the joint level, the nerve reaches the cranial side, continuing along the extensor carpi radialis muscle (m. extensor carpi radialis). The radial nerve transmitted articular branches to the cranial quadrant of the capsule, between the extensor carpi radialis muscle (From here is not necessary to include again the Latin name to this muscle) and the common digital extensor (m. extensor digitorum communis).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints” has been improved by the Authors. The Authors have highlighted the significance and the course of musculocutaneous, median, radial and ulnar nerves which innervate the elbow joint. My comments were taken into consideration and the text was corrected in a way that the article represents a greater scientific value. However there are still some minor corrections to be done:

- Line 52, there is double parenthesis

- Some of Latin names are in italics and some not. It should be unified.

- Line 206, double dot

- Line 227, the sentence should be changed. There is: “In results reported… it was reported.

In my opinion the article entitled: “Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints” is suitable for publishing in PLOS ONE after minor revision.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

PLoS One. 2025 Jan 27;20(1):e0316379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316379.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

8 Dec 2024

We appreciate reviewer’s comments. Thank you for your time and effort.

The introduction information should include the description of the branches of each nerve to the elbow joint.

The course of the nerves to the elbow joint was described according to the guidelines.

The introduction has been modified and the indicated titles of literature and articles on regional anesthesia of the nerves innervating the elbow joint have been included.

The redaction in English and Latin should improve.

This article has been edited in accordance with the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria.

Suggestions for Latin names have been included in the article.

I recommend changing the color of the nerve from red to yellow since this later is the most used in the anatomy veterinary textbooks (Figures 3, 6, 9, 11)

The colors of the marked nerves have been changed as suggested.

The photographs of the figures are blurred (Figures 2, 5, 7, 8, 10).

Efforts have been made to improve the quality of the above photos, unfortunately, these are the only photos we have.

Reviewer #1

Line 52, there is double parenthesis

The change was considered.

Some of Latin names are in italics and some not. It should be unified.

The change was considered.

Line 206, double dot

The change was considered.

Line 227, the sentence should be changed. There is: “In results reported… it was reported.

The change was considered.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0316379.s008.docx^{(7.1KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316379.r005

Decision Letter 2

Juan Fernando Vélez García

11 Dec 2024

Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints.

PONE-D-24-21054R2

Dear Dr. Jacewitz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Juan Fernando Vélez García

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors, the manuscript was improved based on my last suggestions and comments. It is ready to publish. Congratulations.

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316379.r006

Acceptance letter

Juan Fernando Vélez García

16 Jan 2025

PONE-D-24-21054R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jacewicz,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Juan Fernando Vélez García

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Table. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint for the median nerve by breed/size.

(PDF)

pone.0316379.s001.pdf^{(32.5KB, pdf)}

S2 Table. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint for the median nerve by age.

(PDF)

pone.0316379.s002.pdf^{(30.8KB, pdf)}

S3 Table. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint for the musculocutaneous nerve by breed/size.

(PDF)

pone.0316379.s003.pdf^{(32.6KB, pdf)}

S4 Table. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint for the musculocutaneous nerve by age.

(PDF)

pone.0316379.s004.pdf^{(30.7KB, pdf)}

S5 Table. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint for the radial nerve by breed/size.

(PDF)

pone.0316379.s005.pdf^{(32.4KB, pdf)}

S6 Table. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint for the radial nerve by age.

(PDF)

pone.0316379.s006.pdf^{(30.7KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0316379.s007.docx^{(8.2KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0316379.s008.docx^{(7.1KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0316379.ref001] 1.Staszyk C. Zur Innervation der Schulter-und Ellbogengelenkkapsel des Hundes:Die Ursprünge von Rami articulares und die intrakapsulare Verteilung von Nervenfasern [dissertation]. Hannover .1999.

[pone.0316379.ref002] 2.Yilmaz B, Bahadir A. Nerves innervating articular capsule of elbow joints in turkish shepherd dogs (Karabas- Kangal). Curly sheep and native hair goats: an anatomic study. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 2009; 15 (6): 835–840. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref003] 3.Hermanson JW, de Lahunta AEvans HE. Miller and Evans’ Anatomy of the dog. 5th ed. St. Louis. Elsevier; 2020. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref004] 4.Konig HE., Liebich HC. Veterinary Anatomy of Domestic Mammals.Textbook and Colour Atlas. 6th ed. Schattauer, Stuttgart; 2014. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref005] 5.Konig HE, Liebich HG. Veterinary anatomy of domestic animals. Textbook and color atlas. 7 th ed. Thieme; 2020. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref006] 6.Baljit S, Dyce, Sack, and Wensing’s textbook of veterinary anatomy. 5 th ed. Elsevier; 2018. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref007] 7.Lambertini C, De Silva M, Grandis A, Martorelli M, Romagnoli N.Update on the anatomy of the brachial plexus in dogs: Body weight correlation and contralateral comparison in a cadaveric study. PLOS ONE. 2023;18(2): e0282179. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref008] 8.Mahler SP, Adogwa AO. Anatomical and experimental studies of brachial plexus, sciatic, and femoral nerve-location using peripheral nerve stimulation in the dog. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia.2008; 35(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2995.2007.00356.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref009] 9.Orsini JA, Grenager NS, De Lahunta A. Comparative veterinary anatomy: a clinical approach. Academic Press;2022. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref010] 10.Bailey CS, Kitchell RL. Cutaneous sensory testing in the dog. J Vet Intern Med 1987;1:128–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref011] 11.Sharp JW, Bailey CS, Johson RD, Kitchell RL. Spinal Nerve Root Origin of the Median, Ulnar and Musculocutaneous Nerves and their Muscle Nerve Branches to the Canine Forelimb. Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series C. 1990;19(4):359–368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref012] 12.Skelding A, Valverde A, Sinclair M, Thomason J, Moens N. Anatomical characterization of the brachial plexus in dog cadavers and comparison of three blind techniques for blockade. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia; 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2017.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref013] 13.Zamprogno H, Hash J, Hulse D A, Lascelles BDX. Elbow denervation in dogs: Development of an in vivo surgical procedure and pilot testing. The Veterinary Journal. 2011; 190(2): 220–224. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.10.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref014] 14.Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. 2 nd ed. Hoboken NJ: Wiley; 2002. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref015] 15.Anderson WD, Anderson BG. Atlas of Canine Anatomy. Baltimore:Verlag Lea and Febiger; 1994. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref016] 16.Gardner E. The innervation of the shoulder joint. Anat Rec. 1948; 102:1–18. doi: 10.1002/ar.1091020102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0316379.ref017] 17.Kitchell RL, Evans HE. The Spinal Nerves. In, HE Evans (Ed): Miller’s Anatomy of the Dog. 3 rd ed.Philadelphia, London:W.B. Saunders. 1993:829–893. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints

Jowita Jacewicz

Waldemar Sienkiewicz

Tomasz Burzykowski

Beata Degórska

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Table 1. The breeds of dogs included in the examination, classified by size (based on dog’s actual weight).

Results

Ulnar nerve

Table 2. Number of articular branches of the nerves innervating the dog’s right and left elbow joint for the 50 examined dogs.

Fig 1. Branch of the ulnar nerve (white arrow) to the elbow capsule (yellow arrow) of the dog.

Fig 3. Diagram showing the articular branch of the ulnar nerve.

Fig 2. Articular branch (white arrow) of the ulnar nerve into caudomedial quadrant of the elbow joint.

Median nerve

Fig 4. Branch of the median nerve to the elbow joint capsule of the dog. (white arrow—articular branch of the nerve; yellow arrow—joint capsule).

Fig 5. Articular branches (red arrows) of the median nerve.

Fig 6. Diagram showing the articular branches of the median nerve.

Table 3. Number (percentage) of dogs with different number of articular branches per joint by sex.

Musculocutaneous nerve

Fig 7. Articular branches of musculocutaneous nerve (white arrow—articular branch of the nerve; yellow arrow—joint capsule).

Fig 8. Articular branches (white arrow) of musculocutaneous nerve to the mediocranial quadrant of the elbow joint capsule.

Fig 9. Diagram showing the articular branches of the musculocutaneous nerve.

Radial nerve

Fig 10. Articular branch (white arrow) of radial nerve.

Fig 11. Diagram showing the articular branches of the radial nerve.

Discussion

Table 4. Number of articular branches of the nerves innervating the dog’s right and left elbow joint for five Turkish Shepherd dogs examined in [2].

Table 5. Percentages (with 95% confidence intervals) of joints with a particular number of articular branches of the nerves reported in [1] and [2] and observed in the current study.

Table 6. Percentages (with 95% confidence intervals) of joints with branches reaching a particular location reported in [1] and [2] and observed in the current study.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Juan Fernando Vélez García

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Juan Fernando Vélez García

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Juan Fernando Vélez García

Roles

Acceptance letter

Juan Fernando Vélez García

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases