Table 1.
Bifid median nerve prevalence and persistent median artery.
| Reference (year) | Population studied | Technique | Number of I/W | BMN prevalence I/W | PMA prevalence I/W |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahn et al.13 (2000) | CTS patients | Intraoperative observation | NA/294 | NA | 0%/0.6% |
| Kopuz et al.11 (1997) | Neonatal cadavers | Dissection | 30/60 | NA | 20%/10% |
| Coleman and Anson9 (1961) | Adult cadavers | Dissection | NA/650 | NA | NA/9.9% |
| Olave et al.12 (1997) | Adult cadavers | Dissection | 51/102 | NA | 16%/23% |
| Rodriquez et al.10 (1999) | Adult cadavers | Dissection | 120/240 | NA | 20%/12.9% |
| Pierre-Jerome et al.5 (2010) | Wrist scans of patients | MRI | 194/194 | NA/6.1% | NA/11% |
| Gassner et al.14 (2002) | Healthly subjects | Ultrasound | 50/100 | NA | 26%/13% |
| Bayrak et al.1 (2008) | Patients sent for US | Ultrasound | 120/240 | 9%/5% | NA |
| Granata et al.6 (2011) | Healthy controls | Ultrasound | 52/104 | 25%/15.4% | NA |
| Walker et al.* (2013) | Latino manual workers | Ultrasound | 518/1036 | 13.3%/8.6% | 5.8%/3.7% |
BMN, bifid median nerve; CTS, carpal tunnel syndrome; I/W, individuals/wrists; NA, not applicable/available; PMA, persistent median artery
*
Current study.