Abstract
Abstract
Background
Traumatic sciatic nerve injuries are functionally devastating and surgically demanding, yet no single center accumulates enough cases to draw reliable conclusions about mechanism-specific outcomes or optimal surgical timing. Despite a growing body of literature, no bibliometric study has specifically mapped the scientific output on this topic in relation to trauma mechanism, operative decision-making, and functional recovery.
Methods
A descriptive bibliometric study was conducted. Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed/MEDLINE were searched for original articles and reviews published in English between January 2015 and December 2025 using predefined Boolean search strings. Records were selected through a PRISMA 2020-compliant process. Performance analysis and science mapping were performed in Biblioshiny (bibliometrix R package) and VOSviewer. Correlational statistics were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics version 27.
Results
A total of 416 publications met the inclusion criteria, distributed across 288 journals. Annual output ranged from 32 to 42 publications per year, with a cumulative total of 416 papers over the decade. Germany (
n
= 28; 6.7%), Turkey (
n
= 25; 6.0%), and India (
n
= 22; 5.3%) were the most productive countries. Motor vehicle accidents (
n
= 89; 28.4%) and gunshot wounds (
n
= 71; 22.6%) were the leading mechanisms identified in full-text review. Among surgically treated cases, neurolysis (64%), sural nerve autografting (32%), and primary end-to-end neurorrhaphy (4%) were the dominant interventions. Surgery within six months of injury was the most consistent predictor of good motor recovery across all technique categories.
Conclusions
This bibliometric analysis maps, for the first time, the mechanism-based surgical literature on traumatic sciatic nerve injuries and identifies persistent gaps in standardized outcome reporting and prospective comparative data. We recommend multicenter registries incorporating validated patient-reported outcome instruments and prospective comparison of penetrating versus blunt injury cohorts as the most actionable priorities for the field.