Cargando…

Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness

The aim of the present study was to determine the validity of ultrasound (US) imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and fascia thickness. Twenty healthy, moderately active participants (aged 49.1 ± 9.74 (36–64) years),...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mechelli, Filippo, Arendt-Nielsen, Lars, Stokes, Maria, Agyapong-Badu, Sandra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6789827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31295936
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mps2030058
_version_ 1783458702472249344
author Mechelli, Filippo
Arendt-Nielsen, Lars
Stokes, Maria
Agyapong-Badu, Sandra
author_facet Mechelli, Filippo
Arendt-Nielsen, Lars
Stokes, Maria
Agyapong-Badu, Sandra
author_sort Mechelli, Filippo
collection PubMed
description The aim of the present study was to determine the validity of ultrasound (US) imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and fascia thickness. Twenty healthy, moderately active participants (aged 49.1 ± 9.74 (36–64) years), underwent imaging of the anterior thigh, using ultrasound and MRI modalities on the same day. Images were analyzed offline to assess the level of agreement between US and MRI measurements. Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed an excellent relationship between US imaging and MRI for measuring muscle (r = 0.99, p < 0.01), SAT (r = 0.99, p < 0.01), and non-contractile tissue (SAT combined with perimuscular fascia) thickness (r = 0.99, p < 0.01). Perimuscular fascia thickness measurement showed a poor correlation between modalities (r = 0.39, p < 0.01). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) also showed excellent correlation of the measurements with ICC = 0.99 for muscle thickness, SAT, and non-contractile tissue, but not for perimuscular fascia, which showed poor agreement ICC = 0.36. Bland and Altman plots demonstrated excellent agreement between US imaging and MRI measurements. Criterion validity was demonstrated for US imaging against MRI, for measuring thickness of muscle and SAT, but not perimuscular fascia alone on the anterior thigh. The US imaging technique is therefore applicable for research and clinical purposes for muscle and SAT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6789827
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67898272019-10-16 Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness Mechelli, Filippo Arendt-Nielsen, Lars Stokes, Maria Agyapong-Badu, Sandra Methods Protoc Technical Note The aim of the present study was to determine the validity of ultrasound (US) imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and fascia thickness. Twenty healthy, moderately active participants (aged 49.1 ± 9.74 (36–64) years), underwent imaging of the anterior thigh, using ultrasound and MRI modalities on the same day. Images were analyzed offline to assess the level of agreement between US and MRI measurements. Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed an excellent relationship between US imaging and MRI for measuring muscle (r = 0.99, p < 0.01), SAT (r = 0.99, p < 0.01), and non-contractile tissue (SAT combined with perimuscular fascia) thickness (r = 0.99, p < 0.01). Perimuscular fascia thickness measurement showed a poor correlation between modalities (r = 0.39, p < 0.01). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) also showed excellent correlation of the measurements with ICC = 0.99 for muscle thickness, SAT, and non-contractile tissue, but not for perimuscular fascia, which showed poor agreement ICC = 0.36. Bland and Altman plots demonstrated excellent agreement between US imaging and MRI measurements. Criterion validity was demonstrated for US imaging against MRI, for measuring thickness of muscle and SAT, but not perimuscular fascia alone on the anterior thigh. The US imaging technique is therefore applicable for research and clinical purposes for muscle and SAT. MDPI 2019-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6789827/ /pubmed/31295936 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mps2030058 Text en © 2019 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Technical Note
Mechelli, Filippo
Arendt-Nielsen, Lars
Stokes, Maria
Agyapong-Badu, Sandra
Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness
title Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness
title_full Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness
title_fullStr Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness
title_full_unstemmed Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness
title_short Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness
title_sort validity of ultrasound imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous fat, and fascia thickness
topic Technical Note
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6789827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31295936
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mps2030058
work_keys_str_mv AT mechellifilippo validityofultrasoundimagingversusmagneticresonanceimagingformeasuringanteriorthighmusclesubcutaneousfatandfasciathickness
AT arendtnielsenlars validityofultrasoundimagingversusmagneticresonanceimagingformeasuringanteriorthighmusclesubcutaneousfatandfasciathickness
AT stokesmaria validityofultrasoundimagingversusmagneticresonanceimagingformeasuringanteriorthighmusclesubcutaneousfatandfasciathickness
AT agyapongbadusandra validityofultrasoundimagingversusmagneticresonanceimagingformeasuringanteriorthighmusclesubcutaneousfatandfasciathickness