Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Clinical Medicine logoLink to Journal of Clinical Medicine
. 2023 Sep 25;12(19):6186. doi: 10.3390/jcm12196186

Normative Reference Values of the Tibial Nerve in Healthy Individuals Using Ultrasonography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Thanyaporn Senarai 1, Athikhun Suwannakhan 2,3,*, Thongchai Pratipanawatr 4, Kaissar Yammine 5,6, Laphatrada Yurasakpong 2,3, Tanapat Sathapornsermsuk 7, Sirorat Janta 8, Achiraya Kittiboonya 9
Editors: Victor Valderrabano, Marco Alessandro Minetto
PMCID: PMC10573196  PMID: 37834829

Abstract

Background: High-resolution ultrasound of the tibial nerve has been used for screening of several neurologic disorders, but normative reference values of tibial nerve cross-sectional areas (CSA) have not been well established. Thus, the present meta-analysis was performed to generate normative estimates of tibial nerve CSA at various sites of the lower limb based on ultrasonography. Methods: Google Scholar, Scopus and PubMed were searched for potential studies. Studies were required to report tibial nerve CSA in healthy individuals to be included. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed to calculate tibial nerve CSA values. Subgroup and statistical analyses were performed to study covariates. Results: Forty-eight eligible articles consisting of 2695 limbs were included. The average tibial nerve CSA was found to be 10.9 mm2 at the ankle (95% CI: 9.9–11.8) and should not exceed 11.8 mm2 in healthy adults. At the popliteal fossa, the overall CSA was 21.7 mm2 (95% CI: 17.5–25.8) in healthy adults. At both sites, the average tibial nerve CSA was significantly larger in adults than in children, and the differences by geographical region were not statistically significant. At the ankle, tibial nerve CSA increased with age and body mass index, while at the popliteal fossa it increased with age and weight. Conclusions: our findings indicate that the tibial nerve varied not only along its course but also among sub-variables. Establishing normal references values of tibial nerve CSA is helpful to differentiate healthy from diseased tibial nerves such as in diabetic peripheral neuropathy or tarsal tunnel syndrome.

Keywords: tibial nerve, ultrasound, sonography, reference values, systematic review, meta-analysis

1. Introduction

High resolution ultrasound is a powerful and cost-effective imaging modality for depicting peripheral nerves [1]. It clearly demonstrates the morphological changes to the nerve and its precise anatomical position [2], which complement electrodiagnostic studies. In addition, it is a trusted diagnostic tool for tracing and assessing peripheral nerves in several neurologic disorders, including compression neuropathies and chronic inflammatory neuropathies [3]. The most widely accepted measurement is the cross-sectional area (CSA), obtained by being positioned over the nerve at sites of interest. Determination of normal CSA values is crucial to differentiate between normal and abnormal nerves. This has become a subject of interest recently.

The tibial nerve is one of the two branches of the sciatic nerve, providing motor and sensory supplies to most part of the posterior compartment of the leg and foot. The increase in tibial nerve CSA has been implicated in neurologic disorders including diabetic peripheral neuropathy and tarsal tunnel syndrome [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. Establishing normative data on tibial nerve CSA would be clinically helpful in differentiating between healthy and abnormal tibial nerves. A recent meta-analysis [12] has presented CSA values of the tibial nerve in healthy individuals, derived from 16 ultrasonographic studies. However, it is important to acknowledge that a significant number of studies may be absent from this analysis due to the omission of healthy control groups from studies that focused on tibial nerve CSA in patients with various diseases. Including CSA values of healthy controls from these studies would contribute to the establishment of more dependable reference values for the CSA of the tibial nerve. In addition, some authors have reported the effect of age [13,14], weight [15,16] or other parameters on tibial nerve CSA, whereas others [7,17] did not confirm any association. Previously established normal reference values have also varied widely, possibly because of other factors such as varying measurement levels, differences in the examined population and the use of different ultrasound systems [18]. Therefore, a more robust approach is needed to provide more reliable sonographic reference values of tibial nerve CSA.

The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published CSA of the tibial nerve. This was undertaken in order to establish normal reference values and to identify potential factors that influence tibial nerve CSA in healthy individuals.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis accorded with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines [19], the Checklist for Anatomical Reviews and Meta-analysis (CARMA) [20], and the Critical Appraisal Tool for Anatomical Meta-analysis (CATAM) [21]. The protocol employed in this study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020218941). Ethical approval was not required for this study as this is a non-interventional literature review and analysis of published articles from online databases.

2.1. Systematic Literature Search and Study Selection

A systematic literature search was conducted as summarized in Figure 1. Searches were independently performed through Google Scholar, Scopus and PubMed. For Google Scholar, the following keywords were used: “tibial nerve” AND (“ultrasound” OR “sonography”) AND “cross-sectional area”. For Scopus and PubMed databases, the following keywords were used: “tibial nerve” AND (“ultrasound” OR “sonography” OR “cross-sectional area”). Document types including reviews articles, letters, book chapters and conference papers were excluded.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA flowchart showing the protocol of the present meta-analysis.

Study screening was conducted by two authors (T.Se. and A.S.), both holding PhDs and a strong background in radiologic anatomy. Author T.Se. has received training in ultrasound imaging from an independent expert radiologist with 15 years of experience in diagnostic imaging. The selection of studies was undertaken by these two authors (T.Se. and A.S.) in consultation with the third author (T.P.), a highly experienced endocrinologist with over three decades of expertise. Each study underwent a comprehensive examination (by T.Se. and A.S.) with meticulous attention to the methodology employed. Further investigation was conducted on studies that fulfilled the following criteria: (1) tibial nerve CSA was reported; (2) tibial nerve CSA was measured by ultrasound; (3) location of CSA measurement was reported; (4) number of subjects were reported; and (5) patients included were healthy/had no history of diabetes or poor vascular state. Studies that failed at least one of the aforementioned criteria were excluded from the analysis. More studies were excluded when the results were poorly or not clearly reported, for instance, if there was a lack of standard deviation or if they did not pass an assessment on the risk of bias. Factors that may influence tibial nerve CSA, including geographical region, age (children or adults), weight and body mass index (BMI), were investigated further by subgroup analysis or correlational analysis.

2.2. Risk of Bias Assessment

The quality of the potential studies was assessed using the Revised-Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool [22]. The QUADAS-2 tool was designed to evaluate four aspects of methodological quality including patient selection, details of the index test, description of the reference standard, and flow and timing of participant recruitment. Each item was rated by two authors as “low risk”, “high risk” or “unclear”. Any disagreement between the two assessors was resolved by a third.

2.3. Meta-Analysis

A random-effect meta-analysis was used to generate pooled-estimates of tibial nerve CSA. The data that were extracted include number of subjects, tibial nerve CSA, standard deviations, measurement location, country, age, weight and BMI. Measurement locations include sciatic nerve bifurcation, popliteal fossa, midcalf and ankle. When tibial nerve CSA was measured at the ankle, distance to the medial malleolus was recorded. The primary outcomes were average tibial nerve CSA in healthy individuals by locations. The secondary outcomes include subgroup analysis by geographical region, age group and BMI categories. Regression analysis was carried out to study the effect of age, weight and BMI on tibial nerve CSA. The effect sizes were reported with 95% confidence intervals and standard deviations. Standard errors were calculated using the equation SE = SD/√ (number of subjects). Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Within-subgroup differences were assessed using Q-statistics. Publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot of effect sizes versus standard errors and Egger’s regression test.

Meta-analysis and all statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 17 (StataCorp, Lakeway, TX, USA). Statistical significance was established at p = 0.05 (two-tailed).

3. Results

3.1. Systematic Review

The systematic literature search yielded a total of 2020 entries on Google Scholar, 608 entries on PubMed, and 336 entries on Scopus (Figure 1). A total of 105 were initially excluded including 45 reviews and books, 43 letters, 5 conference papers and 7 notes. Abstract screening obtained a total of 167 potential studies. The full texts of these studies were downloaded and read thoroughly. One-hundred and twenty-seven entries were further excluded including 120 unrelated studies and 1 study in which standard deviation was not reported. In total, 48 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent risk of bias assessment. Characteristics of these 48 studies and raw data for meta-analysis is available in File S1.

3.2. Risk of Bias Assessment

Quality assessment results, including the proportions of studies with low and high risk of bias, are shown in Figure 2 (File S1). Regarding patient selection as well as flow and timing, all studies were rated as low risk. For reference standard, 7 out of 48 (15%) studies were classified as high risk because the location in which the tibial nerve CSA was measured was not precisely reported. For index test, 10 out of 48 (21%) studies were regarded as high risk because of the use of a single observer with no measurement of intra-observer reliability or because the expertise of the observers was not mentioned.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Assessment of methodological quality using QUADAS-2 tool. Green color indicates “low risk” studies and orange color indicates “high risk” studies.

3.3. Demography of the Subjects

Cohort characteristics of studies [4,5,6,7,10,11,13,14,15,16,17,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59] included in the meta-analysis are summarized in Table 1. Forty-eight studies yielded a total of 2695 healthy subjects including 2503 (92.9%) adults and 192 (7.1%) children. Demographically, 1368 (50.8%) subjects were from Asia, 130 (4.8%) from Eastern Europe, 509 (18.9%) from Europe, 531 (19.7%) from North American and 157 (5.8%) from Oceania. Tibial nerve CSA was measured at four locations, including popliteal fossa (24 studies), sciatic nerve bifurcation (1 study), midcalf or mid-tibia (5 studies) and around the ankle (47 studies). Note that a single study may contain one to several groups of subjects categorized by location of CSA measurement. As a result, the total number of ultrasound studies (Figure 3) exceeded the total number of studies meeting the criteria for meta-analysis.

Table 1.

Cohort characteristics of 48 studies included in this meta-analysis.

Study Year Country Location Subjects 1 CSA SD Age Weight BMI
Bae and An [23] 2022 South Korea Popliteal fossa 107 24.73 6.03 N/A 64.4 23.3
Midcalf 107 12.97 3.71 N/A 64.4 23.3
Ankle 107 15.55 3.8 N/A 64.4 23.3
Bedewi et al. [24] 2018 Saudi Arabia Ankle 138 12.66 4.45 38.33 77.15 29.31
Popliteal fossa 138 19.08 6.88 38.33 77.15 29.31
Bedewi et al. [25] 2021 Saudi Arabia Popliteal fossa 72 13.4 3.4 33.2 64.1 24.9
Boehm et al. [26] 2014 Hungary and Germany Ankle 56 9.6 2.2 N/A N/A 24.2
Borire et al. [27] 2018 Australia Ankle 30 12.8 0.5 60.8 N/A 30.2
Boyd and Dilley [28] 2014 USA Ankle 20 13.32 1.53 46.6 72.59 24.75
Popliteal fossa 20 25.37 4.41 46.4 72.59 24.75
Breiner et al. [29] 2016 Canada Ankle 100 12.8 3.5 44.1 N/A 25.3
Cartwright et al. [16] 2008 USA Midcalf 60 25.3 7.3 45.9 N/A N/A
Popliteal fossa 60 35.5 10.3 45.9 N/A N/A
Ankle 60 13.7 4.3 45.9 N/A N/A
Cartwright et al. [14] 2013 USA Popliteal fossa 60 11.2 3.3 42.4 N/A 26.2
Popliteal fossa 12 15.1 5.5 82.2 N/A 24.9
Ankle 5 12.6 2.1 13.8 N/A 22.8
Ankle 60 13.7 4.3 42.4 N/A 26.2
Popliteal fossa 3 6.7 3.1 13.8 N/A 22.8
Popliteal fossa 4 10.2 2.9 8.8 N/A 16.9
Ankle 4 7.5 2.5 8.8 N/A 16.9
Chen et al. [30] 2000 China Ankle 33 8.31 2.32 51.51 N/A 23.28
Dikici et al. [31] 2017 Türkiye Ankle 20 14.3 3.8 58 N/A N/A
Druzhinin et al. [13] 2019 Russia Popliteal fossa 7 9.71 2.82 5.61 27.5 N/A
5 12.46 1.69 8.47 34.3 N/A
7 12.3 3.82 11.3 40.5 N/A
22 12.7 8.3 24.5 64.9 N/A
4 13.4 6.27 14.8 48.4 N/A
12 8.41 2.39 3.27 18.1 N/A
Fantino et al. [33] 2021 France Midcalf 21 10.6 1.8 39 67 N/A
Elfattah Hassan Gadalla et al. [32] 2022 Egypt Ankle 20 13.2 3.1 40 N/A N/A
Garg et al. [34] 2018 Australia Ankle 17 14.8 3.2 N/A N/A N/A
Goyal et al. [35] 2021 India Ankle 70 5.7 1.3 44.2 66.9 24.95
Grimm et al. [58] 2014 Germany Ankle 21 8.6 2.7 53.14 85.2 N/A
Popliteal fossa 21 21.5 4.4 53.14 85.2 N/A
Grimm et al. [58] 2 2014 Germany Ankle 8 10.3 2.5 49.71 76 N/A
Popliteal fossa 8 27.5 7 49.71 76 N/A
Popliteal fossa 21 8.6 2.7 53.14 64.29 N/A
Grimm et al. [36] 2018 Germany Ankle 100 10.2 2 N/A N/A N/A
He et al. [37] 2019 China Ankle 40 11.55 1.59 55.2 55.83 22.38
Hobbelink et al. [38] 2018 Australia Ankle 5 5.8 0.9 8.2 N/A N/A
Hooper et al. [39] 2011 Canada Ankle 32 10.78 1.72 33.3 70.1 23.7
Ibrahim [40] 2022 Egypt Ankle 50 10.26 1.86 54.23 N/A 28.81
Ishibashi et al. [4] 2016 Japan Ankle 29 4.84 0.16 50.6 N/A 23
Issar et al. [41] 2022 Australia Ankle 28 12.3 3.1 62 N/A 25
Ito et al. [42] 2007 Japan Ankle 35 7.9 1.5 N/A N/A N/A
Jain et al. [43] 2009 India Ankle 30 6.3 3.2 33 N/A N/A
Jang et al. [44] 3 2014 South Korea Ankle 18 10 1.5 45.9 68.4 24.2
18 18 4 45.9 68.4 24.2
Jang et al. [44] 2014 South Korea Popliteal fossa 18 33.1 3.8 45.9 68.4 24.2
Kang et al. [5] South Korea Ankle 20 12.36 2.85 65 60.25 22.86
2016 Popliteal fossa 20 33.14 4.92 65 60.25 22.86
Midcalf 20 16.39 2.95 65 60.25 22.86
Kelle et al. [6] 2016 Turkey Sciatic bifurcation 53 18.43 5.79 57.8 N/A 30.22
Kerasnoudis et al. [7] 2013 Germany Ankle 75 6.36 1.45 N/A N/A N/A
Lothet et al. [46] 2019 USA Ankle 140 13.7 4.3 N/A N/A 25.8
Niu et al. [47] 2021 China Ankle 111 10.2 1.9 41.7 65.3 23.3
Noto et al. [48] 2018 Australia Popliteal fossa 30 23.7 7.4 59.7 76.4 N/A
Ankle 30 14.1 3.2 59.7 76.4 N/A
Pelosi et al. [57] 2022 New Zealand Popliteal fossa 18 34.46 11 52.3 N/A 25.7
Pitarokoili et al. [49] 2016 Germany Ankle 55 9.14 2.41 64.1 N/A 26.64
Qrimli et al. [17] 2016 Canada Ankle 98 12.7 3.1 N/A N/A N/A
Razali et al. [50] 2016 Malaysia Ankle 17 12.6 5.4 50.5 70.5 27.5
Schubert et al. [51] 2020 Germany Ankle 57 5.07 1.51 6 N/A 15.2
57 4.31 1.38 3 N/A 15.9
Seok et al. [15] 2014 South Korea Ankle 94 12.1 3.1 43.9 62.8 22.9
Popliteal fossa 94 24.4 4.4 43.9 62.8 22.9
Sindhu et al. [52] 2022 India Ankle 100 10.1 2.23 40.7 58.6 22.41
Popliteal
fossa		 100 20.7 4.41 40.7 58.6 22.41
Singh et al. [9] 2017 India Ankle 75 12.42 1.1 39.54 65.34 N/A
Singh et al. [10] 2022 India Midcalf 200 19.6 1.4 N/A N/A N/A
Ankle 200 11.1 1.1 N/A N/A N/A
Sreejith et al. [53] 2021 India Ankle 30 8.9 2.319 44 N/A N/A
Tandon et al. [54] 2021 India Ankle 30 3.01 0.61 51.26 61.5 25.46
Tawfik et al. [59] 2016 Egypt Ankle 17 13.8 4.4 N/A N/A N/A
van Maurik et al. [55] 2014 Netherlands Ankle 38 6.43 1.32 61.29 70.84 24.4
Watanabe et al. [11] 2010 Japan Ankle 32 8.9 2.8 53.7 62.6 N/A
Yiu et al. [56] 2015 Australia Ankle 29 6.3 1.9 11.3 N/A N/A
Open in a new tab

1 Total number of subjects in this column exceeded 2695 because several measurements at different sites were made for some studies. 2 There were two studies by Grimm et al., 2014 [58]. 3 This study performed two measurements at different levels of the ankle.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Cross-sectional area of tibial nerve in healthy subjects across subgroups.

3.4. Overall Tibial Nerve Cross-Sectional Area

Pooled estimates of tibial nerve CSA in healthy subjects are depicted in Figure 3. In the popliteal fossa, the average tibial nerve CSA value was 19.0 mm2 (95% CI: 15.4–22.7, I2 = 99.28%). At mid-calf, the mean tibial nerve CSA was 16.9 mm2 (95% CI: 11.9–22.0, I2 = 99.62%). At the ankle, tibial nerve CSA was on average 10.4 mm2 (95% CI: 9.5–11.4, I2 = 99.68%). Subgroup analysis was further carried out to study the influence of age group, geographical region and BMI on tibial nerve CSA (Figure 3). Tibial nerve CSA was significantly larger (p < 0.01) in adults (14.4 mm2, 95% CI: 12.6–16.1, I2 = 99.91%) than in children (8.7 mm2, 95% CI: 6.9–10.5, I2 = 97.86%). Subgroup analysis by geographical region showed no statistically significant differences among the continents (p = 0.35). A funnel plot of effect sizes against standard errors were visually and statistically asymmetrical (z = 4.41, p < 0.01), suggesting the presence of publication bias (Figure S1). Leave-one-out meta-analysis was not performed because there were no potential outlier studies by observing the forest plot.

3.5. Tibial Nerve Cross-Sectional Area at the Popliteal Fossa and Ankle

Subgroup specific meta-analysis and regression analysis were carried out to study overall tibial nerve CSA at the ankle and popliteal fossa (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Cross-sectional area of the tibial nerve in healthy subjects and subgroup analysis at the ankle (A) and popliteal fossa (B).

Analysis of 48 studies revealed that tibial nerve CSA at the ankle was on average 10.9 mm2 (95% CI: 9.9–11.8, I2 = 99.65%) in healthy adults and 6.8 mm2 (95% CI: 4.5–9.1, I2 = 98.72%) in healthy children (Figure 4A). Subgroup analysis showed statistically significant differences among the continents (p < 0.01) (Figure 4A), with Eastern Europeans demonstrating the largest tibial nerve CSA (14.3 mm2, 95% CI: 12.6–16.0), while Europeans had the smallest tibial nerve CSA (7.7 mm2, 95% CI: 6.2–9.2). Similar to the overall tibial nerve CSA analyzed previously, the funnel plot was significantly asymmetrical, indicating publication bias (z = 3.16, p < 0.01) (Figure S2). Leave-one-out meta-analysis was conducted to detect the influence of one potential outlier study [44]. The results show that the overall tibial nerve CSA did not change significantly (Figure S3). Correlation between tibial nerve CSA and distance relative to the medial malleolus was analyzed (0 to 7 cm proximal to the medial malleolus) and was not found to be statistically significant (Pearson’s r = −0.31, p = 0.07) (Figure S4).

At the popliteal fossa, analysis of 24 studies indicated that the overall tibial nerve CSA was 21.7 mm2 (95% CI: 17.5–25.8, I2 = 99.35%) in adults and 10.7 mm2 (95% CI: 9.1–12.3, I2 = 68.05%) in children (Figure 4B). Subgroup analysis revealed statistically significant differences among the continents (p < 0.01) (Figure 4B), with Oceanians demonstrating the largest tibial nerve CSA value, followed by Europeans, Asians, North Americans, and Eastern Europeans. The funnel plot was symmetrical (z = 0.55, p = 0.58), suggesting the absence of publication bias. Leave-one-out meta-analysis was not performed because no potential outlier study was identified.

Regression analysis was then performed to evaluate the effect of age, weight and BMI on the mean CSA at the ankle (Figure 5A) and popliteal fossa (Figure 5B). The tibial nerve CSA increased significantly with age at both at the ankle (Pearson’s r = 0.38, p = 0.02) and the popliteal fossa (Pearson’s r = 0.60, p < 0.01). Tibial nerve CSA was positively associated with weight only at the popliteal fossa (Pearson’s r = 0.61, p < 0.01). No correlations were found for the BMI at both sites (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Correlation between tibial nerve cross-sectional and age, weight or body mass index in healthy subjects and the ankle (A) and popliteal fossa (B).

4. Discussion

In the present study, we established the normative reference values of tibial nerve CSA in healthy individuals. Although a recent systematic review and meta-analysis [12] has provided reference values of tibial nerve CSA in healthy individuals based on 16 ultrasonographic studies, we note that a substantial amount of literature may be missing because only studies in healthy individuals were included. Healthy controls of other potential studies, however, were inadvertently neglected. To include a broader range of studies, we intentionally omitted the keyword ‘normal’ from our systematic review. As a result, we identified a total of 48 studies involving 2695 individuals, nearly four times the number analyzed in the previous meta-analysis [12].

We found that the tibial nerve CSA was the largest at the popliteal fossa, followed by mid-calf level and the ankle. However, the results exhibit significant between-study heterogeneity, with I2 values exceeding 99% for tibial nerve CSA across all three anatomical sites. Therefore, subgroup analysis and regression analysis were attempted to discern the causes of heterogeneity and the variables that might mediate tibial nerve CSA (Figure 3). Subgroup analysis was performed only at the ankle and popliteal fossa (Figure 4) because a number of studies performed at the other sites were insufficient. Since significant between-study heterogeneity persisted even after subgroup analysis, we conducted correlational analysis to examine the potential impact of other factors, such as age, weight, and BMI, on tibial nerve CSA.

The effect of age on tibial nerve CSA has been controversial. Eight previous studies [13,16,17,24,25,47,52,59] have confirmed a significant influence of age, while four studies [9,15,16,26] found no correlation. In this study, we found that the effect of age was statistically significant (Figure 5). This result is in contrast with our previous meta-analysis of tibial nerve CSA in diabetic patients, in which the tibial nerve CSA in healthy control groups was relatively consistent across all age groups [60]. The significant effect of age could be the result of normal somatic growth of the nerve, which reaches a climax during late childhood or early adulthood [51]. The absence of a correlation with age in our previous study [60] is probably due to the use of matched-control patients; as a result, no data from children were obtained. Studies have reported divergent findings regarding the impact of height, weight, and BMI, as reported by Singh et al. [10]. We did not analyze height in the present study due to its heterogeneity, especially in children of a similar age [51]; instead, we focused solely on weight and BMI. In this study, we found a significant correlation between tibial nerve CSA weight at the popliteal fossa but not the ankle. The impact of weight was also confirmed by 12 other studies [10,13,15,16,23,24,25,26,46,47,52,59], while only two studies found no such correlation [7,17]. Though the effect of height was not studied in this meta-analysis, eight studies [10,15,16,23,46,47,52,59] reported a significant impact of height, while only four studies [7,13,17,26] found no correlation. Finally, we note there is no standardized protocol when measuring the tibial nerve CSA at the ankle and the probe could be placed anywhere from 0 to 7 cm proximal to the medial malleolus (Table 1). Because of this, the correlation between tibial nerve CSA and distance relative to the medial malleolus was analyzed. Although the correlation was not statistically significant, we observed that tibial nerve CSA tended to be higher when measured at 5 cm or more above the medial malleolus, while it remained fairly uniform between 0–5 cm above the medial malleolus (Figure S4). This result is consistent with the findings of Ranjan et al. [61] who have reported that tibial nerve CSA did not change much in the same person at 1, 3 or 5 cm above the medial malleolus. Another factor that might cause high between-study heterogeneity is ankle position during the CSA measurement. It was found that tibial nerve CSA differed significantly depending on the ankle position [62].

By establishing normative reference values of tibial nerve CSA, a cut-off point can be used as a clinical tool to detect patients with suspected chronic neuropathies. Tibial nerve CSA was found to be elevated in patients with tarsal tunnel syndrome [33,59]. Recently, Senarai et al. [60] have observed that tibial nerve CSA was statistically larger in diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathy when compared with baseline diabetic patients or healthy controls. Nerve swelling in diabetic patients with neuropathy strongly correlated with chronic inflammation, hyperglycemia, and other risk factors associated with diabetes [63].

Several conditions can result in nerve swelling, including leprosy, hereditary motor and sensory neuropathies, and chronic inflammatory demyelinating neuropathies [64]. The pathophysiology of nerve enlargement involves the proliferation of periaxonal Schwann cells, resulting in nerve thickening resembling an onion bulb-like structure, ultimately leading to chronic recurrent demyelination of the nerve. Additionally, factors such as blood vessels, cells, and certain agents within the endoneurium can also contribute to an increase in nerve CSA [65].

Because of methodological differences, between-study heterogeneity, and other confounding variables, establishing cut-off values for tibial nerve CSA in these three groups was not possible. This limits the clinical usefulness of tibial nerve CSA as a diagnostic marker for diabetic peripheral neuropathy [60]. For screening and diagnosing diabetic peripheral neuropathy, a cut-off value in healthy individuals reported in this study might be equally useful. Likewise, tibial nerve CSA was also found to be high in patients with tarsal tunnel syndrome [33,59]. Tibial nerve CSA in tarsal tunnel syndrome patients was investigated by Tawfik et al. [59]. The CSA value at 19 mm2, with a sensitivity of 61% and a specificity of 88% was proposed as a cut-off value for healthy tibial nerves. In this study, the average tibial nerve CSA in healthy adults was 10.9 mm2 (95% CI: 9.9–11.8). In our opinion, the upper limit of 11.8 mm2 could serve as a cut-off point for healthy tibial nerves, with values higher than this possibly requiring further investigation. This cut-off point may be applicable as a screening tool to early detect diabetic peripheral neuropathy, preempting the stage of permanent limb damage or even amputation. In addition, since tibial nerve CSA at the ankle was strongly correlated with age and BMI even in healthy individuals, these two factors should always be considered when studying tibial nerve CSA.

5. Limitations

The present work is not without limitations. The majority of the included patients were Asians, which introduces a potential bias towards a single population group. While the funnel plot and associated statistical analysis suggested the possibility of moderation by publication bias or small study effects, plot asymmetry could also be attributed to other factors, such as heterogeneity [66]. High between-study heterogeneity was observed, so the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution. Apart from the sub-variables that were studied by subgroup analysis or meta-regression, possible causes of heterogeneity may be observer- and machine-dependent, such as the protocol used to evaluate tibial nerve CSA and the difference in the transducers used. It was observed that selecting different neural brightness settings could lead to varying CSA values [10], highlighting the need for standardized research methodology. Among the 48 included studies, only a small number mentioned the statistical tools used for testing inter- or intra-observer reliability. Correlations with height, sex difference and side difference were not analyzed due to insufficient data.

6. Conclusions

This study established the normative reference values of the tibial nerve CSA in healthy subjects. Among the key results, we found that tibial nerve CSA in healthy adults should not exceed 11.8 mm2 at the ankle and is positively correlated with age and BMI. The establishment of normal reference values for tibial nerve CSA is valuable for preliminary screening of tibial nerve neuropathy such as in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy or tarsal tunnel syndrome. In cases of diabetic neuropathy, we believe that ultrasound serves as a valuable screening tool for the early detection of tibial nerve abnormalities, preempting the stage of irreversible sensory loss which could lead to permanent damage. Nevertheless, electromyography, nerve conduction studies and sensation studies remain the gold standard when diagnosing these neuropathies. Further research is still needed to study tibial nerve CSA in wider ethnic populations using a more standardized methodology that can be adapted universally to avoid extreme between-study heterogeneity.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Faculty of Science at Mahidol University and the Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12196186/s1, Figure S1: funnel plot of overall CSA; Figure S2: funnel plot of CSA at the ankle; Figure S3: leave-one-out meta-analysis; Figure S4: Correlation between tibial nerve CSA and distance relative to the medial malleolus; File S1: raw data for meta-analysis.

Click here for additional data file. (976.4KB, zip)

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.S. (Thanyaporn Senarai), T.P. and A.S.; methodology, T.S. (Thanyaporn Senarai) and A.S.; software, A.S.; validation, T.P., K.Y. and A.K.; formal analysis, T.S. (Thanyaporn Senarai), A.S. and T.P.; investigation, T.S. (Thanyaporn Senarai) and A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, T.S. (Thanyaporn Senarai) and A.S.; writing—review and editing, T.P., K.Y., L.Y., T.S. (Tanapat Sathapornsermsuk), S.J. and A.K.; supervision, T.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the Faculty of Medicine at Khon Kaen University, Thailand, grant number SY66003.

Footnotes

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.

References

  • 1.Lawande A.D., Warrier S.S., Joshi M.S. Role of ultrasound in evaluation of peripheral nerves. Indian J. Radiol. Imaging. 2014;24:254–258. doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.137037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Telleman J.A., Grimm A., Goedee S., Visser L.H., Zaidman C.M. Nerve ultrasound in polyneuropathies. Muscle Nerve. 2018;57:716–728. doi: 10.1002/mus.26029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Telleman J.A., Herraets I.J.T., Goedee H.S., van Asseldonk J.T., Visser L.H. Ultrasound scanning in the diagnosis of peripheral neuropathies. Pract. Neurol. 2021;21:186. doi: 10.1136/practneurol-2020-002645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ishibashi F., Taniguchi M., Kojima R., Kawasaki A., Kosaka A., Uetake H. Elasticity of the tibial nerve assessed by sonoelastography was reduced before the development of neuropathy and further deterioration associated with the severity of neuropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. J. Diabetes Investig. 2016;7:404–412. doi: 10.1111/jdi.12408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kang S., Kim S.H., Yang S.N., Yoon J.S. Sonographic features of peripheral nerves at multiple sites in patients with diabetic polyneuropathy. J. Diabetes Complicat. 2016;30:518–523. doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2015.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kelle B., Evran M., Ballı T., Yavuz F. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy: Correlation between nerve cross-sectional area on ultrasound and clinical features. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 2016;29:717–722. doi: 10.3233/BMR-160676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kerasnoudis A., Pitarokoili K., Behrendt V., Gold R., Yoon M.S. Cross sectional area reference values for sonography of peripheral nerves and brachial plexus. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2013;124:1881–1888. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Riazi S., Bril V., Perkins B.A., Abbas S., Chan V.W., Ngo M., Lovblom L.E., El-Beheiry H., Brull R. Can ultrasound of the tibial nerve detect diabetic peripheral neuropathy?: A cross-sectional study. Diabetes Care. 2012;35:2575–2579. doi: 10.2337/dc12-0739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Singh K., Gupta K., Kaur S. High resolution ultrasonography of the tibial nerve in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. J. Ultrason. 2017;17:246–252. doi: 10.15557/JoU.2017.0036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Singh K.P., Kaur S., Arora V. Reference values for the cross sectional area of normal tibial nerve on high-resolution ultrasonography. J. Ultrason. 2022;22:e144–e152. doi: 10.15557/JoU.2022.0024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Watanabe T., Ito H., Sekine A., Katano Y., Nishimura T., Kato Y., Takeda J., Seishima M., Matsuoka T. Sonographic evaluation of the peripheral nerve in diabetic patients: The relationship between nerve conduction studies, echo intensity, and cross-sectional area. J. Ultrasound Med. 2010;29:697–708. doi: 10.7863/jum.2010.29.5.697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fisse A.L., Katsanos A.H., Gold R., Krogias C., Pitarokoili K. Cross-sectional area reference values for peripheral nerve ultrasound in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis-Part II: Lower extremity nerves. Eur. J. Neurol. 2021;28:2313–2318. doi: 10.1111/ene.14850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Druzhinin D., Naumova E., Nikitin S. Nerve ultrasound normal values in children and young adults. Muscle Nerve. 2019;60:757–761. doi: 10.1002/mus.26715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cartwright M.S., Mayans D.R., Gillson N.A., Griffin L.P., Walker F.O. Nerve cross-sectional area in extremes of age. Muscle Nerve. 2013;47:890–893. doi: 10.1002/mus.23718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Seok H.Y., Jang J.H., Won S.J., Yoon J.S., Park K.S., Kim B.J. Cross-sectional area reference values of nerves in the lower extremities using ultrasonography. Muscle Nerve. 2014;50:564–570. doi: 10.1002/mus.24209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cartwright M.S., Passmore L.V., Yoon J.S., Brown M.E., Caress J.B., Walker F.O. Cross-sectional area reference values for nerve ultrasonography. Muscle Nerve. 2008;37:566–571. doi: 10.1002/mus.21009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Qrimli M., Ebadi H., Breiner A., Siddiqui H., Alabdali M., Abraham A., Lovblom L.E., Perkins B.A., Bril V. Reference values for ultrasonograpy of peripheral nerves. Muscle Nerve. 2016;53:538–544. doi: 10.1002/mus.24888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Abdelnaby R., Elsayed M., Mohamed K.A., Dardeer K.T., Sonbol Y.T., Elgenidy A., Barakat M.H., NasrEldin Y.K., Maier A. Sonographic reference values of vagus nerve: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Neurophysiol. Pract. 2022;39:59–71. doi: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D., Shamseer L., Tetzlaff J.M., Akl E.A., Brennan S.E., et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yammine K. Evidence-based anatomy. Clin. Anat. 2014;27:847–852. doi: 10.1002/ca.22397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.D’Antoni A.V., Tubbs R.S., Patti A.C., Higgins Q.M., Tiburzi H., Battaglia F. The Critical Appraisal Tool for Anatomical Meta-analysis (CATAM): A framework for critically appraising anatomical meta-analyses. Clin. Anat. 2022;35:323–331. doi: 10.1002/ca.23833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Whiting P.F., Rutjes A.W., Westwood M.E., Mallett S., Deeks J.J., Reitsma J.B., Leeflang M.M., Sterne J.A., Bossuyt P.M. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann. Intern. Med. 2011;155:529–536. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bae D.W., An J.Y. Cross-sectional area reference values for high-resolution ultrasonography of the lower extremity nerves in healthy Korean adults. Medicine. 2022;101:e29842. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029842. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bedewi M.A., Abodonya A., Kotb M., Kamal S., Mahmoud G., Aldossari K., Alqabbani A., Swify S. Estimation of ultrasound reference values for the lower limb peripheral nerves in adults: A cross-sectional study. Medicine. 2018;97:e0179. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bedewi M.A., Elsifey A.A., Alfaifi T., Kotb M.A., Abdelgawad M.S., Bediwy A.M., Swify S.M., Awad E.M. Shear wave elastography of the tibial nerve in healthy subjects. Medicine. 2021;100:e23999. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Boehm J., Scheidl E., Bereczki D., Schelle T., Arányi Z. High-resolution ultrasonography of peripheral nerves: Measurements on 14 nerve segments in 56 healthy subjects and reliability assessments. Ultraschall. Med. 2014;35:459–467. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1356385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Borire A.A., Issar T., Kwai N.C., Visser L.H., Simon N.G., Poynten A.M., Kiernan M.C., Krishnan A.V. Correlation between markers of peripheral nerve function and structure in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 2018;34:e3028. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Boyd B.S., Dilley A. Altered tibial nerve biomechanics in patients with diabetes mellitus. Muscle Nerve. 2014;50:216–223. doi: 10.1002/mus.24155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Breiner A., Qrimli M., Ebadi H., Alabdali M., Lovblom L.E., Abraham A., Albulahi H., Perkins B.A., Bril V. Peripheral nerve high-resolution ultrasound in diabetes. Muscle Nerve. 2017;55:171–178. doi: 10.1002/mus.25223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chen R., Wang X.-L., Xue W.-L., Sun J.-W., Dong X.-Y., Jiang Z.-P., Wu H., Ma R., Zhou X.-L. Application value of conventional ultrasound and real-time shear wave elastography in patients with type 2 diabetic polyneuropathy. Eur. J. Neurol. 2020;126:108965. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108965. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dikici A.S., Ustabasioglu F.E., Delil S., Nalbantoglu M., Korkmaz B., Bakan S., Kula O., Uzun N., Mihmanli I., Kantarci F. Evaluation of the tibial nerve with shear-wave elastography: A potential sonographic method for the diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Radiology. 2017;282:494–501. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016160135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Elfattah Hassan Gadalla A.A., Nada H.R., Kaddah R.O., Khalil A.S., Saleh M.M. Quantitative shear wave elastography assessment of tibial nerve in diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Egypt. J. Radiol. Nucl. Med. 2022;53:131. doi: 10.1186/s43055-022-00803-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Fantino O., Bouysset M., Pialat J.B. Can the axial cross-sectional area of the tibial nerve be used to diagnose tarsal tunnel syndrome? An ultrasonography study. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2021;107:102630. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.02.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Garg N., Park S.B., Howells J., Noto Y.I., Vucic S., Yiannikas C., Tomlinson S.E., Huynh W., Simon N.G., Mathey E.K., et al. Anti-MAG neuropathy: Role of IgM antibodies, the paranodal junction and juxtaparanodal potassium channels. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2018;129:2162–2169. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.07.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Goyal K., Aggarwal P., Gupta M. Ultrasound evaluation of peripheral nerves of the lower limb in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Eur. J. Neurol. 2021;145:110058. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.110058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Grimm A., Axer H., Heiling B., Winter N. Nerve ultrasound normal values—Readjustment of the ultrasound pattern sum score UPSS. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2018;129:1403–1409. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.03.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.He Y., Xiang X., Zhu B.-H., Qiu L. Shear wave elastography evaluation of the median and tibial nerve in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Quant. Imaging Med. Surg. 2019;9:273. doi: 10.21037/qims.2019.02.05. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hobbelink S.M.R., Brockley C.R., Kennedy R.A., Carroll K., de Valle K., Rao P., Davis M.R., Laing N.G., Voermans N.C., Ryan M.M., et al. Dejerine-Sottas disease in childhood-Genetic and sonographic heterogeneity. Brain Behav. 2018;8:e00919. doi: 10.1002/brb3.919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hooper D.R., Lawson W., Smith L., Baker S.K. Sonographic features in hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies. Muscle Nerve. 2011;44:862–867. doi: 10.1002/mus.22199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ibrahim H.R. Diagnostic value of shear wave ultrasound elastography of tibial nerve in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Egypt. J. Radiol. Nucl. Med. 2022;53:102. doi: 10.1186/s43055-022-00779-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Issar T., Walker S., Arnold R., Poynten A.M., Endre Z.H., Krishnan A.V. Peripheral nerve morphology and intraneural blood flow in chronic kidney disease with and without diabetes. Muscle Nerve. 2022;65:603–607. doi: 10.1002/mus.27513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ito T., Kijima M., Watanabe T., Sakuta M., Nishiyama K. Ultrasonography of the tibial nerve in vasculitic neuropathy. Muscle Nerve. 2007;35:379–382. doi: 10.1002/mus.20673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Jain S., Visser L.H., Praveen T.L., Rao P.N., Surekha T., Ellanti R., Abhishek T.L., Nath I. High-resolution sonography: A new technique to detect nerve damage in leprosy. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2009;3:e498. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jang J.H., Cho C.S., Yang K.S., Seok H.Y., Kim B.J. Pattern analysis of nerve enlargement using ultrasonography in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2014;125:1893–1899. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.12.115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kronlage M., Pitarokoili K., Schwarz D., Godel T., Heiland S., Yoon M.S., Bendszus M., Bäumer P. Diffusion tensor imaging in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: Diagnostic accuracy and correlation with electrophysiology. Investig. Radiol. 2017;52:701–707. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lothet E.H., Bishop T.J., Walker F.O., Cartwright M.S. Ultrasound-derived nerve cross-sectional area in extremes of height and weight. J. Neuroimaging. 2019;29:406–409. doi: 10.1111/jon.12590. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Niu J., Zhang L., Ding Q., Liu J., Zhang Z., Cui L., Liu M. Reference values for lower limb nerve ultrasound and its diagnostic sensitivity. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2021;86:276–283. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2021.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Noto Y.I., Garg N., Li T., Timmins H.C., Park S.B., Shibuya K., Shahrizaila N., Huynh W., Matamala J.M., Dharmadasa T., et al. Comparison of cross-sectional areas and distal-proximal nerve ratios in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve. 2018;58:777–783. doi: 10.1002/mus.26301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Pitarokoili K., Kerasnoudis A., Behrendt V., Labedi A., Ayzenberg I., Gold R., Yoon M.S. Facing the diagnostic challenge: Nerve ultrasound in diabetic patients with neuropathic symptoms. Muscle Nerve. 2016;54:18–24. doi: 10.1002/mus.24981. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Razali S.N.O., Arumugam T., Yuki N., Rozalli F.I., Goh K.J., Shahrizaila N. Serial peripheral nerve ultrasound in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2016;127:1652–1656. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.06.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Schubert C., Grimm A.S., Stahl J.H., Küpper H., Kegele J., Wittlinger J., Serna-Higuita L., Winter N., Groeschel S., Grimm A. Nerve ultrasound reference data in children from two to seven years. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2020;131:859–865. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2019.12.404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Sindhu D., Huddar A., Saini J., Vengalil S., Nashi S., Bardhan M., Unnikrishnan G., Rajula R.R., Kandavel T., Bathala L. Cross-sectional area reference values of nerves in the upper and lower extremities using ultrasonography in the Indian population. Ann. Indian Acad. Neurol. 2022;25:449. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2021.02.287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sreejith K., Sasidharanpillai S., Ajithkumar K., Mani R.M., Chathoth A.T., Menon P.S., George B., Manakkad S.P., Neerackal R.J., Menon D., et al. High-resolution ultrasound in the assessment of peripheral nerves in leprosy: A comparative cross-sectional study. Indian J. Dermatol. Venereol. Leprol. 2021;87:199–206. doi: 10.25259/IJDVL_106_20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Tandon A., Khullar T., Maheshwari S., Bhatt S., Narang S. High resolution ultrasound in subclinical diabetic neuropathy: A potential screening tool. Ultrasound. 2020;29:150–161. doi: 10.1177/1742271X20958034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.van Maurik J.F.M., Schouten M.E., ten Katen I., van Hal M., Peters E.J., Kon M. Ultrasound findings after surgical decompression of the tarsal tunnel in patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy: A prospective randomized study. Diabetes Care. 2014;37:767–772. doi: 10.2337/dc13-1787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Yiu E.M., Brockley C.R., Lee K.J., Carroll K., de Valle K., Kennedy R., Rao P., Delatycki M.B., Ryan M.M. Peripheral nerve ultrasound in pediatric Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A. Neurology. 2015;84:569–574. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Pelosi L., Ghosh A., Leadbetter R., Lance S., Rodrigues M., Roxburgh R. Nerve ultrasound detects abnormally small nerves in patients with spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy. Muscle Nerve. 2022;65:599–602. doi: 10.1002/mus.27509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Grimm A., Décard B.F., Axer H. Ultrasonography of the peripheral nervous system in the early stage of Guillain-Barré syndrome. J. Peripher. Nerv. Syst. 2014;19:234–241. doi: 10.1111/jns.12091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Tawfik E.A., El Zohiery A.K., Abouelela A.A.K. Proposed sonographic criteria for the diagnosis of idiopathic tarsal tunnel syndrome. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2016;97:1093–1099. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Senarai T., Pratipanawatr T., Yurasakpong L., Kruepunga N., Limwachiranon J., Phanthong P., Meemon K., Yammine K., Suwannakhan A. Cross-Sectional area of the tibial nerve in diabetic peripheral neuropathy patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of ultrasonography studies. Medicina. 2022;58:1696. doi: 10.3390/medicina58121696. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Ranjan T., Chandak S., Malhotra A., Aggarwal A., Haria J., Singla D. Role of high-resolution ultrasonography in the evaluation of the tibial and median nerves in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. J. Ultrason. 2022;22:e209–e215. doi: 10.15557/JoU.2022.0035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Bueno-Gracia E., Ruiz-de-Escudero-Zapico A., Malo-Urriés M., Shacklock M., Estébanez-de-Miguel E., Fanlo-Mazas P., Caudevilla-Polo S., Jiménez-Del-Barrio S. Dimensional changes of the carpal tunnel and the median nerve during manual mobilization of the carpal bones. Musculoskelet. Sci. Pract. 2018;36:12–16. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2018.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Yagihashi S., Mizukami H., Sugimoto K. Mechanism of diabetic neuropathy: Where are we now and where to go? J. Diabetes Investig. 2011;2:18–32. doi: 10.1111/j.2040-1124.2010.00070.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Khadilkar S.V., Yadav R.S., Soni G. A practical approach to enlargement of nerves, plexuses and roots. Pract. Neurol. 2015;15:105–115. doi: 10.1136/practneurol-2014-001004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Weller R.O., Das Gupta T.K. Experimental hypertrophic neuropathy: An electron microscope study. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry. 1968;31:34–42. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.31.1.34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ioannidis J.P., Trikalinos T.A. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: A large survey. CMAJ. 2007;176:1091–1096. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Click here for additional data file. (976.4KB, zip)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Journal of Clinical Medicine are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES