ClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT07805902Updated Sep 8, 2026

Anatomical Probability Model for Tibial and Peroneal Motor Entry Points

An observational study in Lower Extremity Anatomy, Peripheral Nerve Anatomy and Surgical Anatomy, sponsored by Research Inc. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in Colombia. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-08.

Sponsored by Research Inc · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Other
Time perspective
Cross-sectional
Enrollment
20
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This completed descriptive cadaveric study mapped the motor entry points of lower-leg muscles supplied by the tibial, superficial peroneal, and deep peroneal nerves. Twenty fresh-frozen adult lower-limb specimens without prior trauma or surgery were examined. One extremity from each cadaver was selected by coin toss. Investigators performed standardized posterior, lateral, and anterior compartment dissections, followed each terminal motor branch to the point where it entered the target muscle, and measured its location relative to total leg length. For each muscle, motor entry point location was expressed as a proportion of leg length and summarized using the mean, standard deviation, and probability intervals corresponding to mean plus or minus one and two standard deviations. The study was designed to provide quantitative anatomical reference zones that may support surgical planning for hyperselective neurectomy and related lower-leg procedures.

Read the detailed description

Hyperselective neurectomy requires accurate localization of terminal motor branches and their neuromuscular entry points in the lower leg. This descriptive cadaveric study was designed to establish proportional anatomical reference zones for motor branches of the tibial, superficial peroneal, and deep peroneal nerves.

Fresh-frozen adult lower-limb specimens without prior trauma or prior surgical intervention were examined. One extremity per cadaver was selected by coin toss. Standardized posterior, lateral, and anterior compartment dissections were performed to identify the tibial nerve and the common peroneal nerve, trace the superficial and deep peroneal divisions, and follow terminal motor branches to the point at which each branch entered the corresponding muscle.

For tibial nerve branches, branch location was referenced to the posterior border of the tibia at the midpoint of the proximal epiphysis. For superficial and deep peroneal branches, the proximal reference point was the most superior aspect of the fibular head on its anterior surface. The distal reference point was the point of entry into the target muscle. Total leg length was measured from the knee joint line to the ankle joint line. The motor entry point was calculated as the distance to the entry point divided by total leg length. Distributions were evaluated separately for each muscle using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and probability intervals corresponding to mean plus or minus one standard deviation and mean plus or minus two standard deviations were used to define the most likely anatomical zones of motor branch entry. When required, logarithmic, square-root, or power transformations were used to approximate normality, with results expressed on the original proportional scale.

02

Conditions studied

  • Lower Extremity Anatomy
  • Peripheral Nerve Anatomy
  • Surgical Anatomy

Keywords

  • Tibial nerve
  • Superficial peroneal nerve
  • Deep peroneal nerve
  • Motor entry point
  • Cadaveric dissection
  • Hyperselective neurectomy
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Research Inc is the lead sponsor of 24 studies on the registry; 22 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Fresh-frozen adult cadaveric lower-limb specimens available through the institutional cadaveric program at CLEMI in Cundinamarca, Colombia. Specimens were selected according to institutional procurement standards and were required to have no prior trauma or surgical intervention involving the lower limbs. One extremity per cadaver was selected by coin toss for dissection.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Adult cadaveric specimen (age at death 18 years or older)
  • Fresh-frozen lower-limb specimen made available under institutional standards for cadaveric research
  • No prior trauma involving the selected lower limb
  • No prior surgical intervention involving the selected lower limb

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Cadaveric specimen from an individual younger than 18 years at death
  • Prior trauma involving the lower limb
  • Prior surgical intervention involving the lower limb
05

Study design

Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Cross-sectional
Enrollment
20 participants (estimated)
Target follow-up
1 Day
Patient registry
Yes

Groups and cohorts

  • Adult Cadaveric Lower-Limb Specimens

    Twenty fresh-frozen adult lower-limb cadaveric specimens were examined. Specimens had no prior lower-limb trauma or surgical intervention. One extremity per cadaver was selected by coin toss and underwent standardized dissection for identification and measurement of terminal motor branches of the tibial, superficial peroneal, and deep peroneal nerves.

    Other: Standardized Cadaveric Lower-Limb Dissection

Interventions

  • OtherStandardized Cadaveric Lower-Limb Dissection

    Standardized posterior, lateral, and anterior compartment dissections were performed. The tibial nerve was identified through the posterior approach. The common peroneal nerve was identified near the biceps femoris tendon and traced to its superficial and deep divisions. Motor branches were followed to their points of entry into the target muscles. The location of each motor entry point was measured relative to prespecified tibial or fibular landmarks and normalized to total leg length measured from the knee joint line to the ankle joint line.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Mean proportional localization of motor nerve entry points by target muscle

    For each terminal motor branch, the distance from the prespecified proximal bony reference point to the point at which the branch entered the target muscle was measured. For tibial branches, the proximal reference was the posterior border of the tibia at the midpoint of the proximal epiphysis. For superficial and deep peroneal branches, the proximal reference was the most superior aspect of the fibular head on its anterior surface. Total leg length was measured from the knee joint line to the ankle joint line. The motor entry point was calculated as distance to the entry point divided by total leg length and expressed as a dimensionless proportion. For each target muscle, the mean, standard deviation, 68% probability interval (mean ±1 standard deviation), and 95% probability interval (mean ±2 standard deviations) were calculated. Target muscles included the medial and lateral gastrocnemius, soleus, flexor digitorum longus, flexor hallucis longus, tibialis posterior, fibularis/peroneus

    Time frame: Periprocedural, during the single standardized cadaveric dissection session for each specimen. 1 day

Secondary outcomes

  1. Number of motor branches identified by parent nerve and target muscle

    Count of terminal motor branches arising from the tibial, superficial peroneal, or deep peroneal nerve and entering each dissected target muscle. Results are reported as counts by parent nerve and target muscle.

    Time frame: Periprocedural, during the single standardized cadaveric dissection session for each specimen. 1 day

07

Study locations

1 site
  • entro Latinoamericano de Investigación y Entrenamiento en Cirugía Mínimamente Invasiva (CLEMI)
    Bogotá, Colombia
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Baroncini M, Baiz H, Wavreille G, Demondion X, Maurage CA, Buisset N, Blond S, Kim HJ, Fontaine C. Anatomical bases of tibial neurotomy for treatment of spastic foot. Surg Radiol Anat. 2008 Aug;30(6):503-8. doi: 10.1007/s00276-008-0359-9. Epub 2008 May 15. PubMed 18480959 ↗
  • Sindou MP, Simon F, Mertens P, Decq P. Selective peripheral neurotomy (SPN) for spasticity in childhood. Childs Nerv Syst. 2007 Sep;23(9):957-70. doi: 10.1007/s00381-007-0399-1. Epub 2007 Jun 29. PubMed 17605016 ↗
  • Leclercq C, Perruisseau-Carrier A, Gras M, Panciera P, Fulchignoni C, Fulchignoni M. Hyperselective neurectomy for the treatment of upper limb spasticity in adults and children: a prospective study. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2021 Sep;46(7):708-716. doi: 10.1177/17531934211027499. Epub 2021 Jul 13. PubMed 34256619 ↗
  • Kim SC, Kang MH, Ock JJ. Calf-contouring surgery of gastrocnemius hypertrophy: selective neurectomy of the sural nerve. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008 Nov;32(6):889-93. doi: 10.1007/s00266-007-9107-5. PubMed 18363052 ↗
  • Abbruzzese G. The medical management of spasticity. Eur J Neurol. 2002 May;9 Suppl 1:30-4; discussion 53-61. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-1331.2002.0090s1030.x. PubMed 11918647 ↗
  • Dauleac C, Sindou M, Mertens P. How I do it: selective tibial neurotomy. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020 Aug;162(8):1921-1923. doi: 10.1007/s00701-020-04314-9. Epub 2020 May 7. PubMed 32377951 ↗
  • Mikalef P, Power D. The role of neurectomy in the management of spasticity of the upper limb. EFORT Open Rev. 2017 Nov 27;2(11):469-473. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160074. eCollection 2017 Nov. PubMed 29218232 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — it is a research performed by one one surgeon, we do not requiere any other surgeon, once finished is going to be published in a journal

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Start is estimated for Oct 2026; primary completion for Oct 2026, 0 months later.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Sep 1, 2026
First posted
Sep 8, 2026
StartEst.
Oct 1, 2026
Primary completionEst.
Oct 2, 2026
CompletionEst.
Oct 2, 2026
Last update
Sep 8, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Sep 8, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07805902
Lead sponsor
Research Inc
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Sep 8, 2026
Start date
Oct 1, 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
Oct 2, 2026 (estimated)
Completion
Oct 2, 2026 (estimated)
Last update
Sep 8, 2026

Study contacts

MARIA F GARCIA RUEDA, MD, Orthopedist
Contact
m-garciar@javeriana.edu.co
+57 3208541343
Maria F Garcia Rueda, MD, Orthopedist
principal investigator

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Sep 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion