4.4 Article

Innervation of the human cricopharyngeal muscle by the recurrent laryngeal nerve and external branch of the superior laryngeal nerve

Journal

LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
Volume 402, Issue 4, Pages 683-690

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-016-1376-5

Keywords

Cricopharyngeal muscle; Recurrent laryngeal nerve; External branch of the superior laryngeal nerve; Pharyngeal plexus

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The major component of the upper esophageal sphincter is the cricopharyngeal muscle (CPM). We assessed the contribution of the laryngeal nerves to motor innervation of the CPM. Methods We performed an intraoperative electromyographic study of 27 patients. The recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN), vagus nerve, external branch of the superior laryngeal nerve (EBSLN), and pharyngeal plexus (PP) were stimulated. Responses were evaluated by visual observation of CPM contractions and electromyographic examination via insertion of needle electrodes into the CPM. Results In total, 46 CPMs (24 right, 22 left) were evaluated. PP stimulation produced both positive visual contractions and electromyographic (EMG) responses in 42 CPMs (2080 +/- 1583 mu V). EBSLN stimulation produced visual contractions of 28 CPMs and positive EMG responses in 35 CPMs (686 +/- 630 mu V). Stimulation of 45 RLNs produced visible contractions of 37 CPMs and positiveEMG activity in 41 CPMs (337 +/- 280 mu V). Stimulation of 42 vagal nerves resulted in visible contractions of 36 CPMs and positive EMG responses in 37 CPMs (292 +/- 229 mu V). Motor activity was noted in 32 CPMs by both RLN and EBSLN stimulation, 9 CPMs by RLN stimulation, and 3 CPMs by EBSLN stimulation; 2 CPMs exhibited no response. Conclusions This is the first study to show that the EBSLN contributes to motor innervation of the human CPM. The RLN, EBSLN, or both of the nerves innervate the 90, 75, and 70 % of the CPMs ipsilaterally, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available