The superficial palmar arch and median artery as an example of misleading results due to a small number of investigated specimens or the use of different classifications

Background: Small numbers of investigated specimens might lead to misinterpretations. Different classifications can change results dramatically. This is demonstrated by an investigation of the superficial palmar arch and the palmar median artery. Materials and methods: A total of 702 upper limbs were investigated. Data were collected during eight dissection courses for advanced medical students and one workshop of hand surgery (number of investigated limbs per course between 52 and 111). The variations of superficial palmar arches were documented according to the classification of Lippert and Pabst as well as the occurrence of a palmar median artery. The results of each course were compared among each other, to the total result and compared to allocation according Jaschtschinski's classification. Results: In total, the results show complete arches in 52.15%. Incomplete arches with the ulnar artery supplying the thumb in 15.38%, reaching the index in 22.15% and the middle finger in 10.32%. Median arteries were documented in 4.5%. Individual course results varied concerning complete arches from 41.1% (37 out of 90) and 65% (35 out of 55), median arteries were found between 0 (0 of 69 hands) and 9.1% (5 of 55 hands). Classifying our total result with Jaschtschinski's classification there would have been complete arches in 67.8% (individual course result: 43.3-81.8%). Conclusions: Small numbers of investigated specimens can lead to confounding results. The classification used has to be precisely determined. Both classifications need to be known to interpret results correctly. A repetition of investigation might be performed to confirm results. (c) 2011 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.