Introduction: Brachial plexopathies often associated with refractory neuropathic pain. Treatment by techniques such as peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), and dorsal root entry zone ablation (DREZotomy) depends on precise anatomical targets and adequate pain phenotyping. However, gaps persist between dissection findings and therapeutic decision-making. The objective of the present study is to present an anatomical–clinical framework, which translates dissective observations into applicable rules for the choice of the modality, definition of safe windows, and standardization of the decision flow in painful plexopathies. Methodology: Systematic dissection of the upper cadaveric limb was performed with photodocumentation and recording of anatomical findings relevant to interventional practice. Results: Safe windows for PNS of the suprascapularis nerves, axillary nerve, median nerve, ulnar nerve, and radial nerve were described. The C5–T1 dermatomes for GRD, principles of coverage in cervical SCS (C3–C7), and anatomical landmarks of the dorsal root entry zone (posterolateral groove and superficial laminae of the posterior horn) were mapped as a reference for DREZotomy, as indicated in preganglionic avulsion. The final product includes an applied atlas; a decision-making matrix that integrates painful phenotype and topography with technique, target, window, and risks; in addition to operative flow such as phenotyping, technique selection, target definition, window choice, coverage evaluation, trial, and rehabilitation. Conclusion: The proposed framework, through its atlas and decision matrix, offers a structured model for teaching and standardizing interventional approaches in painful plexopathies. It emphasizes its educational value, with clinical efficacy and safety yet to be validated.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, D.A.A.M., C.Q.D. and E.K.M.R.; methodology, D.A.A.M., C.Q.D. and E.K.M.R.; investigation, D.A.A.M., C.Q.D. and E.K.M.R.; writing—original draft preparation, D.A.A.M., C.Q.D. and E.K.M.R.; writing—review and editing, D.A.A.M., C.Q.D. and E.K.M.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Anatomical data were generated through cadaveric dissection and photo documentation during this study. These data are not publicly available due to ethical and institutional restrictions regarding cadaveric material, but may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.