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&am...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Filippo Mechelli, Lars Arendt-Nielsen, Maria Stokes, Sandra Agyapong-Badu
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	MDPI AG 2019-07-01
Series:	Methods and Protocols
Subjects:	fascia thickness MRI muscle thickness rectus femoris ultrasound imaging subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness validity vastus intermedius
Online Access:	https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9279/2/3/58

id	doaj-ceafba1e28e94741a6644ca80b0a10ef
record_format	Article
spelling	doaj-ceafba1e28e94741a6644ca80b0a10ef2020-11-25T00:19:36ZengMDPI AGMethods and Protocols2409-92792019-07-01235810.3390/mps2030058mps2030058Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia ThicknessFilippo Mechelli0Lars Arendt-Nielsen1Maria Stokes2Sandra Agyapong-Badu3Centre of Sensory Motor Interaction, Department of Health Science and Technology, School of Medicine, University of Aalborg, 9220 Aalborg, DenmarkCentre of Sensory Motor Interaction, Department of Health Science and Technology, School of Medicine, University of Aalborg, 9220 Aalborg, DenmarkSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UKSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, UKThe 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, <i>p</i> < 0.01), SAT (r = 0.99, <i>p</i> < 0.01), and non-contractile tissue (SAT combined with perimuscular fascia) thickness (r = 0.99, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Perimuscular fascia thickness measurement showed a poor correlation between modalities (r = 0.39, <i>p</i> < 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.https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9279/2/3/58fascia thicknessMRImuscle thicknessrectus femorisultrasound imagingsubcutaneous adipose tissue thicknessvalidityvastus intermedius
collection	DOAJ
language	English
format	Article
sources	DOAJ
author	Filippo Mechelli Lars Arendt-Nielsen Maria Stokes Sandra Agyapong-Badu
spellingShingle	Filippo Mechelli Lars Arendt-Nielsen Maria Stokes Sandra Agyapong-Badu Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness Methods and Protocols fascia thickness MRI muscle thickness rectus femoris ultrasound imaging subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness validity vastus intermedius
author_facet	Filippo Mechelli Lars Arendt-Nielsen Maria Stokes Sandra Agyapong-Badu
author_sort	Filippo Mechelli
title	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_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_sort	validity of ultrasound imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous fat, and fascia thickness
publisher	MDPI AG
series	Methods and Protocols
issn	2409-9279
publishDate	2019-07-01
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, <i>p</i> < 0.01), SAT (r = 0.99, <i>p</i> < 0.01), and non-contractile tissue (SAT combined with perimuscular fascia) thickness (r = 0.99, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Perimuscular fascia thickness measurement showed a poor correlation between modalities (r = 0.39, <i>p</i> < 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.
topic	fascia thickness MRI muscle thickness rectus femoris ultrasound imaging subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness validity vastus intermedius
url	https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9279/2/3/58
work_keys_str_mv	AT filippomechelli validityofultrasoundimagingversusmagneticresonanceimagingformeasuringanteriorthighmusclesubcutaneousfatandfasciathickness AT larsarendtnielsen validityofultrasoundimagingversusmagneticresonanceimagingformeasuringanteriorthighmusclesubcutaneousfatandfasciathickness AT mariastokes validityofultrasoundimagingversusmagneticresonanceimagingformeasuringanteriorthighmusclesubcutaneousfatandfasciathickness AT sandraagyapongbadu validityofultrasoundimagingversusmagneticresonanceimagingformeasuringanteriorthighmusclesubcutaneousfatandfasciathickness
_version_	1725371005658988544

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

Similar Items