Lower back pain (LBP) is a frequently encountered clinical
complaint and is nonspecific in most cases.1 A relatively
rare but overlooked cause of LBP is cluneal neuralgia (CN),
or neuropathic pain caused by damage to the cluneal
nerves.2 The cluneal nerves function as purely sensory
nerves and the superior cluneal nerve (SCN) and middle
cluneal nerve (MCN) both provide cutaneous innervation
to the buttock and posterior parasacral region. Both nerves
may cause acute and chronic LBP, in addition to leg symp-
toms, in the cases of superior cluneal nerve-entrapment
(SCN-E) and middle cluneal nerve (MCN-E).2 Generally, CN
is thought of as a diagnosis of exclusion, but clinicians fa-
miliarizing themselves with and recognizing the presence
of SCN-E and MCN-E will prove beneficial in diagnosing
and treating CN. The present investigation summarizes
treatment modalities of CN, which are comprised of various
conservative and interventional pain measures and surgical
management.
EPIDEMIOLOGY
The incidence and prevalence of CN need stronger evidence
and further investigation. However, the literature review
suggests that it is a relatively rare etiology of LBP. In pa-
Corresponding author:
Danyon Anderson
Medical College of Wisconsin
Medical School
8701 W Watertown Plank Rd
Milwaukee, WI 53226
Phone: (719)-310-2831
[email protected]
a
Anderson D, Szarvas D, Koontz C, et al. A Comprehensive Review of Cluneal Neuralgia
as a Cause of Lower Back Pain. Orthopedic Reviews. 2022;14(3).
doi:10.52965/001c.35505
tients with LBP, the incidence of SCN-E is somewhere be-
tween 1.6%-14%.2,3 Another prospective study reported
that SCN disorders comprised 12% of all patients present-
ing with LBP and/or leg symptoms and approximately 50%
of SCN disorder patients had leg pain and/or tingling. The
average duration of these SCN symptoms was found in that
study to be 27.3 months +/- 56.5 months (range 0.1-444
months).4 Epidemiological data on MCN-E is lacking, but
the incidence in LBP patients was found to be 13%.5 A
distinct population that had much more transient cluneal
neuralgia was postpartum mothers. The incidence in over
13000 reported obstetric cases was found to be 0.73%.6
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY/RISK FACTORS
The pathophysiology of SCN-E and MCN-E involves me-
chanical irritation when the peripheral nerve is locally
compressed. This trauma can result from traction, friction,
or repetitive compression, which all result in edema around
the nerve and interference with its normal sliding move-
ment.7 Though histopathologic evidence on CN is lacking,
one pathological study on 2 patients s/p SCN-neurectomy
revealed thickened perineurium, subperineurial edema, Re-
naut bodies, and nerve enlargement related to an increase
in thinly myelinated fibers, which paralleled findings in
other studies as well.8–13 This sheds some light on the
microanatomical considerations on cluneal neuralgia, but
more literature exists on SCN-e and MCN-e on a macro-
scopic level. In the following paragraphs, we investigate the
anatomy of the SCN and its described pathophysiologies,
followed by that of the MCN, and conclude with a brief in-
vestigation of risk factors and possible associations relating
to, and causing, cluneal neuralgia.
The SCN is a purely sensory peripheral nerve, derived
from the cutaneous branches of the dorsal rami of T11-L4/
L5 which passes through the psoas major and paraspinal
muscles and travels posterior to the quadratus lumborum.
It is relatively thin, with a mean diameter of 1.1 mm.14–16
The SCN has been found to exhibit various branching pat-
terns, and a variable number of branches among the pop-
ulation (more than 3 branches in one-third of sub-
jects).3,4,15–20 The SCN’s medial branch in particular has
been shown to penetrate the gluteal fascia and may become
entrapped in the fascia attached to the iliac crest, termed
the “osteofibrous tunnel,” (OT) or a bony groove in the
iliac crest itself.3,4,15,16,20,21 Other investigations have cor-
roborated that in a variable percentage of cases (16-95%)
SCNs pass through the OT, many of which reveal entrap-
ment.16,17,22 A recent study proposed that the SCN’s prox-
imity to a rigid fascial edge over which it runs can subject
the nerve to mechanical forces upon flexion of the hip
joint and stretching of the gluteus maximus, leading to
edema, irritation, inflammatory cell infiltration, scarring,
and subsequent entrapment.7 The superficial thoracolum-
bar fascia and gluteal fascia attaching to the iliac crest were
incriminated as entrapping branches of the SCN in all 19
patients requiring SCN release in this recent study.4 Al-
though Maigne et al initially reported that the SCNs pass-
ing through the OT most commonly arose from L1 & L2
nerve roots (60% and 27%, respectively), another anatomi-
cal study on 37 dissections showed that SCN branches pass-
ing through the OT originated from L3-L5. Most of these
SCNs at risk of entrapment originate from the lower lumbar
nerve; this evidence may explain why SCN-E disorder can
cause leg symptoms mimicking sciatica.2,16
The MCN provides sensation to the posteromedial area
of the buttock and is most often composed of sensory
branches of the dorsal rami of S1-S3, but its origin and
pathways can vary.23–25 In addition, it may anastomose
with the SCN in the subcutaneous tissues of the buttock.16
Overall, the MCN is less likely to be entrapped than the
SCN because it travels superficially to the long posterior
sacroiliac ligament (LPSL), and is shorter and thinner than
the SCN (at an average of 0.8mm), and courses through
paraspinal muscles attaching onto the dorsal sacrum.23
However, being within or under the LPSL is a possible
source of entrapment.16,26–28 The proposed etiology of
pain is either from mechanical stress in the ligament or
nerve compression under the ligament.16 Anatomically, the
LPSL sustains tensile stresses during physiological loading
of the SIJ, which helps describe the clinical picture of MCN-
E (Dumas).29 Similarly to SCN-E, MCN-E can also cause leg
symptoms. However, the authors advised thorough workup
before sending these patients to surgery, as half of their
subjects with intractable LBP with MCN-E had concomitant
sacroiliac joint pain (SIJ) or contributed by other diseases
like SCN-E and radiculopathy.5 Another important cause of
MCN-E that needs more evidence is lumbar disc herniation.
This case report suggests that surgery for this cause of LBP
could be avoided with the treatment of the MCN-E.30
Recent scientific literature has shed light on many pos-
sible risk factors associated with cluneal nerve entrapment/
injury. Importantly, a recent prospective study of LBP re-
ported more women and older patients included in the SCN
disorder group than in the non-SCN disorder group, which
included those suffering from LBP. The average age in the
SCN disorder group was 64.4 It has been shown that as pop-
ulations age, the incidence of LBP increases. Thus, it can be
inferred that SCN-E and MCN-E prevalence (diagnoses of
exclusion) is higher in the older population, although more
studies are certainly warranted on this topic.31 Also, verte-
bral fractures have been described as predisposing to SCN
disorders. Kuniya et al reported that the prevalence of SCN
disorders was significantly higher in patients with vertebral
fractures (26/96, 27%) than in the remaining patient pop-
ulation (87/738, 12%) without vertebral fractures (p<0.01).
The authors proposed a mechanism for this injury: entrap-
ment over the iliac crest by irritation of the SCN at its ori-
gin from unstable facet joints and/or stretching of the SCN
stemming from spinal kyphosis.4 Similarly, another study
also proposed that SCN-E should be considered after verte-
bral compression fracture patients presented with LBP (Kim
et al 2015).
Though stronger studies are indicated, it seems in the
current literature that past surgical history in the posterior
sacral and lumbar spine area could predispose patients to
LBP caused by SCN-E and MCN-E.4,32,33 Delawi et al re-
ported that the most common complication of autologous
A Comprehensive Review of Cluneal Neuralgia as a Cause of Lower Back Pain
Orthopedic Reviews 2
bone graft harvest at the iliac crest is postoperative pain
in the donor.34 Similarly, lumbar disc surgery with fusion
using the iliac crest resulted in persistent graft site pain
and could cause injury to the SCN.32,33 The L1-L3 nerves,
and consequently the SCN, seem to be the most likely sen-
sory nerves to be encountered during posterior iliac crest
harvesting for spinal fusion.35 However, a newer publica-
tion expressed that nerve injury following iliac crest har-
vest could be considered a risk factor for cluneal neuralgia,
although, on the whole, nerve entrapment was a much
more common cause.36 Other surgeries may also lead to
SCN injuries, such as spinal fusion procedures, sacroiliac
screw placements, decubitus ulcer debridement, or muscle
flap surgeries.37–41 Any patients with lumbar or pelvic pro-
cedures are at risk of SCN-E.42 Another anatomic study
suggested that most SCNs were found to pierce the ilio-
costalis muscle, which could compress the SCN and lead to
LBP, or conversely, a surgical approach to either the ilio-
costalis muscle or erector spinae mm could injure/compress
the SCN, although a further clinical investigation is war-
ranted.21
While more investigation needs to be done on the causes
of cluneal neuralgia, two more studies regarding patho-
physiology are worth mentioning. First, transient cluneal
neuralgia can be observed in some postpartum mothers.6
Physiological and anatomical changes during pregnancy,
but also parturition itself or operative delivery can lead to
this nerve injury. In the studied obstetric cases, postpar-
tum cluneal nerve injury caused loss of sensation over the
buttocks.6 In another prospective observational study, the
overall incidence of early postpartum neurological deficits
was found as 2%, with about 13% of those presenting with
cluneal nerve injury. Risk factors of injury in these mothers
that were statistically significant included a past history of
neurological conditions or history of a prior back injury.
However, these postpartum deficits were all resolved in a
few weeks’ time.43 Lastly, Ermis et al did a diagnostic
prospective study on military personnel that showed the
medial branch of the SCN as suffering entrapment in “mus-
cle disorganization” and a taut, thickened peri-iliac band.
However, limitations to the study’s clinical application were
acknowledged, including that those results were unclear as
to whether the “muscle disorganization” they found was re-
lated to nerve pathology or if it gave rise to nerve pathol-
ogy. Also, given the military personnel subject population,
the authors acknowledged that truly generalizable results
should be seen more often in athletes and other physically
trained people, but this is not the case.44
The authors feel that other causes of CN should be in-
vestigated in future studies, including soft tissue pathology,
such as obesity and Parkinson’s disease. The latter partic-
ularly has been hypothesized to lead to abnormal muscle
tone and posturing, which could theoretically compress the
cluneal nerves.2 However, the current literature indicates
that SCN-E and MCN-E are far and away from the most
common causes of LBP due to CN.
CLINICAL PRESENTATION/DIAGNOSIS
Cluneal neuralgia, due to superior and middle cluneal nerve
(SCN and MCN) entrapment, most often presents in the
form of low back pain (LBP). LBP is commonly defined as
pain, tension, or stiffness found between the costal mar-
gin and inferior gluteal folds. With cluneal nerve entrap-
ment, however, there may be tenderness at the rim of the
iliac crest, decreased sensation of the buttocks below the
iliac crest, and leg pain usually radiating to the ipsilateral
leg.45,46 The pain is often exacerbated by moving the lum-
bar region, movements such as rotating, bending, extend-
ing, prolonged sitting, or walking.47 Leg symptoms are seen
in 47-84% of patients, a symptom that mimics lumbar
radiculopathy.47–49 In a study by Strong and Davila in 1957,
twenty-one out of the thirty patients complained of leg
pain in various areas.49
Although the features of SCN and MCN entrapment re-
main to be fully elucidated, the correct identification of
symptoms is required in order to prevent misdiagnoses.
Cluneal nerve entrapment needs to be suspected when the
following criteria are met- LBP is present with iliac crest
and buttocks involvement. The pain is exacerbated upon
movement; a trigger point, corresponding to the pressure
zone of the nerve, is present over the posterior iliac crest.
Upon palpitation of the trigger point, there is tenderness,
numbness, or radiating pain, which signifies a positive
Tinel sign. Finally, there should be relief of symptoms upon
nerve block.46,47 The SCN and MCN are very thin, so imag-
ing studies such as computed tomography (CT) and mag-
netic resonance imaging (MRI) studies are not diagnosti-
cally helpful.47
Multiple studies help to illustrate the criteria that are
first met before diagnosing SCN and MCN entrapment. In a
2013 case report, a 48-year-old woman presented with LBP
and radiating buttock pain; mid-posterior thigh pain was
provoked by palpitation of the MCN trigger points.46 This
pain was relieved by infiltration of a local anesthetic, Li-
docaine. In a similar prospective study, the diagnostic cri-
teria consisted of 1) a tender point on the posterior iliac
crest where the medical branch of SCN runs and 2) palpita-
tion triggered the complaint of LBP and/or leg symptoms.49
The LBP and leg symptoms were assessed using a visual
analog scale (VAS) score. The VAS score was recorded be-
fore the injection (68.6 ± 19.2 mm), fifteen minutes (31.6
± 27.0 mm), and again one week after (45.2 ± 28.8 mm).
Although there was a marked decrease in the VAS score
both fifteen minutes and one week after, the biggest de-
crease was seen fifteen minutes after the injection; how-
ever, both demonstrated a significant decrease compared to
the mean VAS score before injection (p < 0.05).49 Another
significant finding was more women and older subjects (p <
0.05) were in the suspected SCN disorder group compared
to the non-SCN disorder group. Although nerve block injec-
tions had to be repeated up to three times, symptom relief
was achieved in 85% of SCN disorder patients. Nerve block
proved to be an effective treatment modality in this patient
population.49 One study sought to investigate MCN en-
trapment and ascertain the relationship between the MCN
A Comprehensive Review of Cluneal Neuralgia as a Cause of Lower Back Pain
Orthopedic Reviews 3
and long posterior sacroiliac ligament (LPSL), using cadav-
ers. The anatomical study identified 64 MCN branches in
thirty hemipelves, ten of which penetrated the LPSL. Four
of those ten branches had evident constriction under the
ligament. Being that this was the first anatomical study
performed to elucidate MCN entrapment in cadavers, it
is highly likely that this clinical phenomenon is not rare
and may be underdiagnosed.50 A separate anatomical study
considered the relationship between the SCN to the poste-
rior iliac crest and thoracolumbar fascia in fifteen cadav-
ers. While the intermediate and lateral branches of the SCN
pierced or passed through a fissure in the fascia, the me-
dial branches of the SCN appeared to be trapped between
the taut fibers of the thoracolumbar fascia and superior rim
of the iliac crest.51,52 Anatomical knowledge of the cluneal
nerves may help to highlight future decompressive proce-
dures when entrapment is suspected.
DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS
Multiple pathologies must be considered when clinically
presented with a patient suffering from low back pain (LBP)
and/or leg involvement. There are mechanical causes
(97%), nonmechanical spinal conditions (1%), and visceral
diseases (2%) which lead to LBP. Some mechanical causes
of low back pain include internal disk disruption, facet joint
pain, sacroiliac joint pain, sacroiliac ligament pain, torsion
injuries, vertebral insufficiency fractures, scoliosis, inter-
spinous tissue injury, lamina impaction, and spondylolysis
in a sportsperson.53–59 A retrospective study found that the
younger the patient, the higher the likelihood that the LBP
was discogenic in nature, whereas in older patients, sacroil-
iac joint pain or an acetogenic cause was more likely.60 Sta-
tistically, 40% of adults suffer from disc-related pain, 30%
suffer from facet joint pain, and 20% suffer from sacroil-
iac joint-related pain.61 It is clinically important to note
that MCN entrapment mimics sacroiliac joint pain: sacroil-
iac joint pain is also associated with LBP and buttock pain;
however, the SIJ score helps to differentiate between SIJ-re-
lated pain and pain caused by other factors such as lum-
bar spinal canal stenosis and lumbar disc herniation. If the
SIJ block is ineffective, MCN entrapment should be con-
sidered.62 A retrospective analysis investigated LBP due to
SCN entrapment versus lumbar spinal canal stenosis us-
ing the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ).63
The study found that SNC entrapment heavily affects phys-
ical and psychological function; RMDQ scores were sig-
nificantly higher, and an increased level of disability was
seen in the patients with SCN entrapment compared to pa-
tients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis.63 On the other
hand, nonmechanical spine conditions such as neoplasia,
spondylarthritis, Scheuermann disease (especially Type II),
Paget disease, and diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis,
can also cause LBP. LBP can also signify other visceral dis-
eases: prostatitis, endometriosis, pancreatitis, cholecysti-
tis, ulcer, chronic pelvic inflammatory disease, nephrolithi-
asis, pyelonephritis, and pyelonephritic abscess, to name a
few.
In a clinical review on the diagnosis and treatment of
LBP, 90% of patients with LBP have “non-specific low back
pain,” a diagnosis solely based on the exclusion of other
specific pathologies.64 Some “red flags” which seem to indi-
cate an underlying pathology include an onset of 55
years of age, non-mechanical pain, thoracic pain, weight
loss, feeling unwell, widespread neurological symptoms, a
structural spinal deformity, or previous history of carci-
noma, steroids, or HIV. The following indicators are more
suggestive of a nerve root problem: unilateral leg pain that
is greater than the low back pain, pain that radiates to the
foot or toes, numbness and paresthesia, localized neurol-
ogy, and when a straight leg test incites more leg pain.64
Diagnostic imaging studies should be considered when pa-
tients exhibit little to no improvement after 6 weeks of
medical management and/or physical therapy. Imaging
should also be considered for patients with a suspected un-
derlying condition or patients with severe or progressive
neurologic deficits.65
TREATMENT
Cluneal Neuralgia has a wide array of treatment options for
those suffering from the condition. The treatments range
from a simple nerve block all the way to peripheral nerve
stimulation and surgical procedures. After an individual has
been diagnosed with CN, the options for treatment are di-
vided into broad categories: conservative management, pe-
ripheral nerve stimulation, or surgical intervention.
CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT
If an individual chooses conservative management, one of
the first and simplest treatments is a nerve block. In a nerve
block, a local anesthetic with or without a steroid is in-
jected directly into the area causing the pain. This will de-
sensitize the nerve and the steroid can provide an anti-
inflammatory effect, leading to a temporary resolution of
pain. This procedure can be diagnostic and therapeutic. It
can be used as a diagnostic tool in that if it causes a res-
olution of pain then the individual is likely to have a form
of CN. However, if the procedure does not help resolve the
pain, then it is unlikely that the individual has a diagnosis
of CN. It is therapeutic in that if the individual has CN then
the procedure is likely to help resolve the pain, produc-
ing a therapeutic effect.66 Related to the entrapped mid-
dle cluneal nerve usually being found in the Long Posterior
Sacroiliac Ligament (LPSL), researchers have found that ul-
trasound-guided nerve block into the LPSL is able to reli-
ably anesthetize the superior cluneal nerve with a success
rate of 90%.67,68 This treatment is also beneficial for indi-
viduals who are planning to undergo surgery in that it anes-
thetizes the skin, which can control postoperative pain at
the incision site.67 A downfall of local anesthetic alone is
that it is temporary and will wear off over time, causing in-
dividuals to have to receive more injections if they continue
to choose conservative management.
Another conservative management option is high-fre-
quency thermal coagulation. This treatment uses a needle,
A Comprehensive Review of Cluneal Neuralgia as a Cause of Lower Back Pain
Orthopedic Reviews 4
placed in the LPSL, that transmits high-frequency radio
waves and heat, which are used to degenerate the cluneal
nerve, rendering it unable to transmit pain signals. The
needle is heated to a temperature of 90°C and is left in
place for 90 seconds.68 This process is done in three dif-
ferent areas along the LPSL. In a recent study, all individ-
uals who received high-frequency thermal coagulation re-
ported pain alleviation with no reports of complications.68
In addition, thermal coagulation extended the duration of
pain relief to 145.7 ± 38.7 days compared to 7.7 ± 6.6 days
of pain relief from a simple nerve block.68 Although the du-
ration of pain relief is significantly extended with high-fre-
quency thermal coagulation, the pain will still eventually
return and will require further treatment. Related to this,
high-frequency thermal coagulation is an attractive option
for individuals wanting to avoid the operating room. On the
other hand, it may not be the best long-term option for
those wanting to permanently eliminate the pain.
Another conservative management option for cluneal
neuralgia is the use of a Capsaicin patch. Capsaicin is a
highly selective TRPV1 vanilloid receptor ligand. The
TRPV1 vanilloid receptor is largely involved in the trans-
mission of pain signals.69 By prolonged exposure of these
receptors to Capsaicin, they essentially become desensi-
tized to the pain signals. In addition to desensitizing the
fibers to pain, the presence of the Capsaicin patch also
decreases the density of these fibers in the skin, as well
as decreasing the expression of the TRPV1 receptor.69 Re-
searchers have been able to use Capsaicin patches to sig-
nificantly reduce pain in 24% of patients making Capsaicin
patches a potential first-line treatment for individuals with
chronic CN.
Another conservative management option for CN is
wireless peripheral nerve stimulation. In this treatment, af-
ter a diagnosis of CN is made, a Tuohy needle is advanced
into the area of the nerve using ultrasound guidance. Leads
are inserted through the needle and the needle is removed,
and a receiver is then inserted. This treatment allows for
wireless nerve stimulation of the CN, eliminating the need
for surgery.70 Researchers were able to use peripheral nerve
stimulation to provide satisfactory pain control to all in-
dividuals in the study.70 Using this technique, researchers
were able to lower the pain score from 6.4 before treatment,
to 1 after treatment.70 Although peripheral nerve stimula-
tion, using this technique, has been shown to significantly
reduce the pain caused by CN, it is likely to not be used as
the initial, non-surgical treatment. It is most useful in indi-
viduals whose pain is resistant to other non-surgical med-
ical treatments.3
SURGICAL TREATMENT
In many instances, individuals who have refractory CN con-
sider a surgical treatment when more conservative mea-
sures are unsuccessful. Individuals who undergo surgical
procedures are usually those whose non-surgical medical
treatment has been ineffective or those who choose to forgo
non-surgical treatment and instead elect surgery. Fortu-
nately, there are several highly effective surgical methods
that can provide a significant reduction of pain for these in-
dividuals. The benefit of surgical procedures is that there is
direct visualization of the nerve and its surroundings, mak-
ing it safer for the patient and limiting the possibility of
potentially harmful effects. The potential negative effect of
surgical treatment is that anytime there is a surgical pro-
cedure, there are risks of general anesthesia, unintentional
nerve damage, or damage to surrounding tissue.
First, individuals can undergo an open surgical proce-
dure to release the cluneal nerve from its entrapment. This
procedure is done by making a small incision in the gluteal
area where the pain is localized. The surgeon then dissects
the subcutaneous soft tissue and exposes and identifies the
nerve by placing a nerve stimulator in the area. Related to
the anatomical path of the nerve, the thoracolumbar fas-
cia is cut along the path of the superior cluneal nerve un-
til there are no kinks in the nerve.71 This will free the
nerve from its entrapment. This technique was found to
be highly effective, resulting in all 34 individuals who un-
derwent the procedure reporting symptom improvement,
while none of the individuals reported worsening of their
symptoms.71 This procedure is relatively quick and lacks in
serious potential complications with the average duration
of surgery being 45 minutes. The fallback of this procedure,
when compared to other surgical treatments, is that it re-
quires a larger incision site, which potentially exposes the
individual to more surgical site trauma.71,72
The second surgical approach is a minimally invasive
surgery. In the minimally invasive technique, a trans-
gluteal endoscopic approach is performed, in which a sur-
geon uses a camera and endoscopic instruments, each in-
serted into a port surrounding the path of the cluneal
nerve.72 The surgeon then uses the camera and instru-
ments to decompress the nerve, similarly to the open ap-
proach. This procedure has been shown to provide excellent
relief of pain caused by Cluneal neuralgia. At one year, 73%
of individuals reported having a good treatment response,
while 40% claimed that the procedure provided optimal re-
sults. This is increased from 57% and 31% at six months, re-
spectively.72 A major benefit of the minimally invasive pro-
cedure is that individuals are left with two small incision
sites, both less than 5 mm, which decreases the chance of
incision site complications.72 A downfall of this procedure
is that the tissue is not as clearly visualized, which can lead
to unintended damage to the nerve or surrounding tissue.
A problem that some surgeons run into during surgery is
identifying the cluneal nerve surgery, due to its small size,
and confirming that it has been sufficiently decompressed.
A unique tool that surgeons can utilize to help solve this
problem is intraoperative indocyanine green video angiog-
raphy.73 Indocyanine green video angiography provides
real-time patency information and flow dynamics of the
vessels supplying the cluneal nerve.73 This allows surgeons
to more accurately identify the nerve and confirm that ade-
quate decompression is achieved. This technology has been
shown to be effective in identifying not only the cluneal
nerve but also other peripheral nerves, leading to a more
precise and effective decompressive surgery.
A Comprehensive Review of Cluneal Neuralgia as a Cause of Lower Back Pain
Orthopedic Reviews 5
Overall, individuals who undergo surgery for CN report
excellent long-term treatment regarding their pain. The re-
occurrence rate is 13%.74 This is likely due to a lack of
full decompression of the nerve, an entrapment of other
branches of the nerve, or entrapment of a different nerve
altogether.74 This can be avoided by decompressing as
many of the cluneal branches as possible during the orig-
inal surgery. This would prevent the need for another op-
eration, which would expose the individual to the risks as-
sociated with doing so. All individuals who experience a
reoccurrence experienced it in the first 25 months after
surgery, suggesting the need for reevaluation for a mini-
mum of 25 months post-op.74