Talk:Pudendal nerve

Orgasm

how did a search for "33hz orgasm" get me to THIS page? Plonk420 06:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why on earth were you searching for that? Well, as a bonus you get to learn something about the pudendal nerve. Isn't that nice. JFW | T@lk 07:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This article needs illustrations of nerves controlling the female orgasm. The female orgasmic anatomy is much different from and more complicated than, the male's.

Is it safe to freeze this nerve during bilateral orchidectomy surgery? Can it cause damage to sensation of the genitals?--Sonjaaa 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the rate of orgasm-associated muscle contractions 1 every 0.8 seconds? That's not 0.8Hz, it's 1.25Hz.

Good explanations

Hi I've seen a lot of good explanations here [[--KRISG22 (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)KRISG22]]

Parasympathetic?

Isn't the pudendal nerve a PARAsympathetic afferent rather than sympathetic..?

PNTML

Suggest this is a notable facet of discussion of clinical significance of this nerve. PubMed [1] Google books [2]. Lesion (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry for the hasty removal, Lesion, I should have left a talk page message. I'm a little confused as to how this procedure is notable in terms of the pudendal nerve article. Would this procedure would be relevant or available to the majority of our lay readers? How this is different from Nerve conduction velocity in the general sense, couldn't this be mentioned in all articles about nerves? Could this be mentioned in one of the subarticles relating to damage? (If there is no subarticle, perhaps a better solution would to be to add a subsection about damage and incorporate this into the subsection). Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds the same as nerve conduction velocity from the lead of that article ... but I would stress that I do not know much about either topic. I can't remember what content was removed, but probably it was half finished so did not make much sense. PNTML is mostly of relevance to incontinence, and perhaps also sexual dysfunction, so perhaps it could be discussed in those terms? We have a dedicated article on Pudendal nerve entrapment, which is very rare and is not an ideal place to place more general content about dysfunction of this nerve... I think I started a sandbox to work on an article to be called peudendal nerve neuropathy or somesuch where such content would be more relevant... but it is not ready.

We do not discuss the pathology of the PN with due weight... we give a section to a very rare condition, and gloss over much more common conditions, like obstetric trauma for example. Would recommend mention of sacral nerve stimulation also. Lesion (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Based on past nominations we probably have about a month to get this added before the review starts. --LT910001 (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I could make the "imaging" section into an "Investigation" section... and then PNTML could be mentioned in there; and the "Entrapment" section could be renamed and expanded to "Dysfunction" or "pathology". Lesion (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, it occurred to me that PNTML is not synonymous with nerve conduction velocity since only the delay between proximal electrical stimulation and distal motor response is being quantified... sensory does not factor in this investigation. Lesion (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am thinking along the same lines. In the next week I'll add a "damage" section, with a short precis of how damage may occur (eg childbirth) and the symptoms, and subheadings Motor Latency and Imaging, as both of these are essentially checking for nerve damage.--LT910001 (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I might do some stuff here today but feel free to change it. Lesion (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks Lesion --LT910001 (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Diagram

The course of the pudendal nerve is v complex and difficult to picture from words alone. We have one diagram, but this does not adequately represent the 3D arrangement of the nerve with neighboring pelvic structures imo. @CFCF: ping for CFCF's attention here: are there any alternative images available in your sources? Many thanks, Lesion (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

These are some I found after a quick look. The 2:nd and 3:rd image are a bit dates, as they mark the pudic nerve. Tell me if these are good enough, otherwise I can probably find some better ones.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I think all these are good to go into the article. Perhaps combined with removal of some of the current ones... File:Gray320.png ; File:Sacral plexus schematic.svg stand out as not being very useful imo... Lesion (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, I particularly like the first and fourth one here. What I will do is integrate the remaining ones with some of the existing images in a gallery sequence showing the nerve's course. Hope that we don't remove Gray320, as (for me at least) it shows a good description of the greater and lesser sciatic foramen, and the sacro-iliac ligament. The nerve's exit and entry from the pelvis is something often mentioned, but rarely depicted well diagramatically. --LT910001 (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, with circumspection I'm not really sure what the first three sobo images add in terms of value to the page -- they have the 'pudendal nerve' labelled, but it doesn't really show anything about its course other than confirming it does exist in the pelvis. Additionally CFCF, would you be able to find a good diagram showing its course in women? Seems a bit lopsided to have so many images of male anatomy only. There was the Grey's one, but I don't think just because something is labelled in an image it is worthy of a mention. Am also so-so about the current gallery images, as they are essentially the same as the infobox image. Am glad that the 'commons' tag exists, perhaps we could relocate them there. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

But the greater and lesser sciatic foramen is not the focus... also a few of the other diagrams show this as well as the nerve, whereas Gray320 is only osteology. Would remove Gray320 and add the caption detail to another image which shows the foramen. Sobo_1909_724.png and Sobo_1911_725.png both show a different perspective from the other images, and would be good to help identify the course of the nerve imo. Agree Sobo 1909 727.png probably not that useful. Lesion (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

True, but it also helps understand the course. Feel free to add (and re-add if I have removed any) any relevant images, we can put them in sequence in a gallery at the bottom of the 'structure' section, and I'll put the foramen image in the gallery, so it doesn't get pride of place. --LT910001 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Other animals

What other animals have pudendal nerves? For a GA I would have thought this info should be present... unfortunately I have no idea how to find out such info... rats at least have pudendal nerves, because some researchers experiments' involve rats pudendal nerves. Perhaps it is all vertebrates... Lesion (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really certain where to look either. Maybe HCA has an idea? I took some images from a 1950 book that has lapsed out of copyright and when I search it there is at a least mention of the image annotation here (dog): [3] Don't know if that is significant enough. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

So, this is outside my area of expertise, but my suspicion is that it would be hard to really call anything a "pudendal nerve" outside of mammals, especially considering that few other vertebrates have external genetalia. I've got a book at home I can do some digging in (ping me after a week in case I've forgotten) for reptiles, but my a priori hypothesis is that it's only in mammals. HCA (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking into this HCA. Lesion (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Pelvic muscles

“ Branches also innervate muscles of the pelvic floor; namely the bulbospongiosus and ischiocavernosus muscles,[9] ”

...I am not sure these 2 are classified as pelvic floor muscles. Their respective main articles, and the pelvic floor article do not mention that they are... Lesion (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Part of the perineum. Have fixed this oversight. --LT910001 (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pudendal nerve/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seppi333 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@CFCF: Just pinging you to let you know I've started to review this article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Seppi333Thanks for taking up the review. How's it going? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@CFCF & Tom (LT): My apologies for the very late reply/follow-up... I've been really really really busy outside wikipedia for the past few weeks. Other than that, things are fine. :) I'll finish this GA review over the next day or two and indicate any problems which need to be fixed, if any, at that time. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead: the lead is very short. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done expanded. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Refs: Overall I think the article is well-sourced. Most refs are MEDRS-quality and most of the content is cited. There are two statements I feel like should be referenced though since they're specific technical claims. These are:

1. In Imaging: "In rare cases, the nerve may be destroyed with either alcoholic or radiofrequency ablation."

 Done removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

1. In Nerve latency testing: "Prolonged motor latency can be an indicator of the extent of idiopathic or obstetric neurological damage, and can provide some indication regarding potential recovery or response to surgery."

 Done removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• In Structure:

• Is "each side" referring to each side of the perinium in the sentence "The pudendal nerve is a paired structure, with one on each side, termed the left and right pudendal nerves respectively"? I'd suggest specifying the structure it surrounds to for clarity.

 Done reworded --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what S5 refers to in a subsequent sentence: "Sometimes dorsal rami of the first sacral nerve contribute fibers to the pudendal nerve, and even more rarely S5."

 Not done Thanks for your observation. This refers to the fifth sacral nerve (which is wikilinked at the beginning of the sentence). I think that using this technical terminology in the 'variations' section of the anatomy article is probably acceptable. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone not familiar with that contraction is going to be lost. I've supplied a template to make it readable to a layperson. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• In Function

• I'm not eniterely sure what the bolded phrase means in this context: "By providing sensation to the penis and the clitoris, the pudendal nerve is responsible for the afferent component of penile erection and clitoral erection."

 Not done This term is wikilink to explain it. What it means is that erection has two neural components, an afferent component that conveys the stimuli responsible for erection, and the efferent component which causes the penis/clitoris to become erect. The pudendal nerve is responsible for the afferent component. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Er... my bad; wasn't a misunderstanding of meaning/definition - just context. It slipped my mind that it innervated the penis/clitoris. I'm ok with this as is.

That's all I could really see that needs improvement after going through the article. I'll pass it once these are addressed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@CFCF and LT910001: Just letting you two know I finished my review; it just needs the above fixes and it passes as a GA. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get to it shortly. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for taking up this review, Seppi333, I hope I've adequately addressed your concerns (and some more to boot -- expanded the lead and added a further citation). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Pending fixes	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The lead is rather short, but this is a rather brief article, so I'm just going to let this one go on that account. Easily passes other MOS criteria.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Has reflist/passes MOS for it.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Most refs pass WP:MEDRS, minority have a minor meddate/primary issue, but are medical sources, so I'm passing this anyway.	Pass
(c) (original research)	Pending 2 refs.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Correctly sectioned w/ suitable coverage.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No apparent bias from my first full read-through.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Obviously	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All PD lic.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images outside infobox are adequately captioned	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Passes as a GA.

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Pudendal nerve (illustration)

Scuse me, but would it be possible to include an illustration of the female anatomy of the p.n. as well? Vive la difference! Thanks. 50.194.55.251 (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC) chitlit15@gmail.com

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pudendal nerve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515043137/http://www.nervemed.com/nerve-pudendal.html to http://www.nervemed.com/nerve-pudendal.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)