SpringerLink
Log in

Comprehensive anatomy of the superior hypogastric plexus and its relationship with pelvic surgery landmarks: defining the safe zone around the promontory

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Pelvic surgery carries an inherent risk of autonomic nerve injury leading to genitourinary and bowel dysfunction due to the close proximity of the superior hypogastric plexus (SHP). The aim of this study was to define the detailed anatomy of SHP and identify its relationship with the vascular landmarks and ureters for pelvic autonomic nerve-preserving surgery.

Methods

A cadaveric study on the detailed anatomy of the SHP was conducted in our surgical anatomy research unit. Between 02/2019 and 10/2019, macroscopic anatomical dissections were performed on 45 fresh adult cadavers (39 male, 6 female). Distances between the SHP, major vascular structures, and other anatomical landmarks were measured.

Results

Three types of SHP morphology were observed: mesh (64.8%), single nerve (24.4%), and fiber (10.8%). SHP bifurcation was located inferior to the aortic bifurcation in all cases; however, it was observed cranial to the promontory in 80% of the cases, whereas 18% were caudally and 2% were over the promontory. The closest vessels to the left and right of the SHP bifurcation were the left common iliac vein (LCIV) (86.2%, the mean distance was 8.49 ± 7.97 mm) and the right internal iliac artery (RIIA) (48.2%, mean distance was 13.4 ± 9.79 mm), respectively. At SHP bifurcation level, the lateral edge of the SHP was detected on the LCIV in 22 cases and on the RIIA in 10 cases for the left and right side of the plexus, respectively. The distance between the SHP bifurcation and the ureter was 27.9 mm on the right and 24.2 mm on the left. The width of the left (LHN) and right hypogastric nerves (RHN) were 4.35 mm and 4.62 mm at 2 cm below the SHP bifurcation, respectively. LHN was on the vascular structures in 13 cases, whereas RHN in only 1 case, 2 cm below the SHP bifurcation.

Conclusions

Understanding the location of the SHP, including its relationship with important anatomical landmarks, might prevent iatrogenic injury and reduce postoperative morbidity in the pelvic surgery setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim NK, Kim YW, Cho MS (2015) Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer with emphasis on pelvic autonomic nerve preservation: expert technical tips for robotic surgery. Surg Oncol 24(3):172–180

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Akbari RP, Read TE (2006) Laparoscopic rectal surgery: rectal cancer, pelvic pouch surgery, and rectal prolapse. Surg Clin North Am 86(4):899–914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chew MH, Yeh YT, Lim E, Seow-Choen F (2016) Pelvic autonomic nerve preservation in radical rectal cancer surgery: changes in the past 3 decades. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 4(3):173–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hendren SK, O’Connor BI, Liu M, Asano T, Cohen Z, Swallow CJ et al (2005) Prevalence of male and female sexual dysfunction is high following surgery for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 242(2):212–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Açar HI, Kuzu MA (2012) Important points for protection of the autonomic nerves during total mesorectal excision. Dis Colon Rectum 55(8):907–912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Eveno C, Lamblin A, Mariette C, Pocard M (2010) Sexual and urinary dysfunction after proctectomy for rectal cancer. J Visc Surg 147(1):e21-30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Baader B, Herrmann M (2003) Topography of the pelvic autonomic nervous system and its potential impact on surgical intervention in the pelvis. Clin Anat 16(2):119–130

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Selçuk İ, Ersak B, Tatar İ, Güngör T, Huri E (2018) Basic clinical retroperitoneal anatomy for pelvic surgeons. Turk J Obstet Gynecol 15(4):259–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Correia JAP, De-Ary-Pires B, Pires-Neto MA, De Ary-Pires R (2010) The developmental anatomy of the human superior hypogastric plexus: a morphometrical investigation with clinical and surgical correlations. Clin Anat 23(8):962–970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Paraskevas G, Tsitsopoulos P, Papaziogas B, Natsis K, Martoglou S, Stoltidou A et al (2008) Variability in superior hypogastric plexus morphology and its clinical applications: a cadaveric study. Surg Radiol Anat 30(6):481–488

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown RA, Ellis CN (2014) The role of synthetic and biologic materials in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 27:182–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Joubert K, Laryea JA (2017) Abdominal approaches to rectal prolapse. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 30:57–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Poylin VY, Irani JL, Rahbar R, Kapadia MR (2019) Rectal- prolapse repair in men is safe, but outcomes are not well understood. Gastroenterol Rep 7(4):279–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bozkırlı BO, Aytaç E, Esen E, Özben V, Baca B, Hamzaoğlu İ, Karahasanoğlu T (2019) Robotic ventral mesh rectopexy: where do we stand? Turk J Colorectal Dis 29(1):6–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ripperda CM, Jackson LA, Phelan JN, Carrick KS, Corton MM (2017) Anatomic relationships of the pelvic autonomic nervous system in female cadavers: clinical applications to pelvic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 216(4):388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. He JH, Wang Q, Cai QP, Dang RS, Jiang EP, Huang HL et al (2010) Quantitative anatomical study of male pelvic autonomic plexus and its clinical potential in rectal resection. Surg Radiol Anat 32(8):783–790

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery and Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Sıhhıye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey

    B. Kutlu, M. A. Guner, C. Akyol, Y. Gungor, C. Benlice, M. N. Arslan, H. İ. Açar & M. A. Kuzu

Authors
  1. B. Kutlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. A. Guner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Akyol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Y. Gungor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Benlice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. N. Arslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H. İ. Açar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. A. Kuzu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data: BK, MAG, CA, YG, CB, MO, HIA, MAK. Drafting of the article for important intellectual content: BK, MAG, CA, YG, CB, MO, HIA, MAK. Critical manuscript revision and final approval of the submitted version: BK, MAG, CA, YG, CB, MO, HIA, MAK.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. A. Kuzu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest including relevant financial interests, activities, relationships, and affiliations.

Ethical approval

The current descriptive anatomic study was conducted after receiving the approval of the scientific and ethics committees from both the Ankara University (ethics committee decision No. 19-42) and the Institute for Forensic Medicine (scientific committee decision No.21589509/2018/411).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kutlu, B., Guner, M.A., Akyol, C. et al. Comprehensive anatomy of the superior hypogastric plexus and its relationship with pelvic surgery landmarks: defining the safe zone around the promontory. Tech Coloproctol 26, 655–664 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-022-02622-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-022-02622-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation