Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasonography of the Lumbar Multifidus Muscle

Hides, Julie; Richardson, Carolyn A.; Jull, Gwendolen

doi:10.1097/00007632-199501000-00010

Cited by 253 publications

(226 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

204

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The habitual activity levels of the present subpopulation could therefore account for both the greater size and different shape of the multifidus muscle to previously studies sedentary populations . In a review of posterior paraspinal ultrasound imaging, it was highlighted that multifidus at L3 was measured to be 4.9cm 2 (Hides et al, 1995;Stokes et al, 2007). However, the CSA of lumbar multifidus in the present study was much larger (6.89cm 2 ), reflecting the young athletic males included in the study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…The RUSI technique has undergone extensive reliability studies, most of which has shown high reliability for both taking and interpreting the ultrasound images Koppenhaver et al, 2009;Wallwork et al, 2007). The validity of RUSI against the gold standard of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has also been established for several muscles, such as lumbar multifidus cross-sectional area (Hides et al, 1995), abdominal muscle thickness (Hides et al, 2006), cervical multifidus muscle thickness (Lee et al, 2006), infraspinatus muscle thickness (Juul-Kristensen et al, 2000), supraspinatus muscle thickness and CSA (Juul-Kristensen et al, 2000, and lower trapezius (O'Sullivan et al, 2009). An area that has received relatively little attention is determining appropriate scanner specifications for imaging muscles and the present study addresses the topic of transducer shape (or configuration).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The type of transducer used when imaging lumbar multifidus has varied between studies, with some using a curvilinear transducer (Hides et al, 1992;Kiesel et al, 2007;Lee et al, 2006;Stokes et al, 2005) and others using a linear transducer (e.g. Hides et al, 1995), without justification of transducer choice. Some guidance based on anecdotal evidence in a clinical commentary paper suggested that more sound waves would reach the lateral border of multifidus with a curvilinear transducer than a linear transducer .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ultrasound transducer shape has no effect on measurements of lumbar multifidus muscle size

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Evidence is currently lacking for guidance on ultrasound transducer configuration (shape) when imaging muscle to measure its size. This study investigated measurements of lumbar multifidus with curvilinear and linear ultrasound transducers.Method: Fifteen asymptomatic, males (aged 21-32 years) had their right lumbar multifidus imaged at L3 by an experienced ultrasound imager. Two transverse images were taken with two transducers (5MHz curvilinear and 6MHz linear) and linear/CSA measurements were made offline. Reliability of image interpretation between days was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Muscle measurements using the two transducers were compared using Bland and Altman plots and paired t-tests. Relationships between CSA and linear measurements were examined using Pearson's Correlation Coefficients.Results: There were no significant differences ( >0.05) in the measurements of the two transducers. Thickness and CSA measurements had small differences between transducers, with mean differences of 0.01cm (SDdiff=0.21cm) and 0.03cm 2 (SDdiff=0.58cm 2 ) respectively. Width measures had a mean difference of 0.14cm, with the linear transducer giving larger measures.Significant correlations (p <0.001) were found between all linear measures and CSA, with both transducers ( =0.78-0.89). Interpretation of images was generally reliable between days, with thickness measures being the most repeatable (ICC>0.93) and CSA the least repeatable using the linear transducer (ICC=0.78). Conclusion:Measurements of multifidus at L3 were not influenced by the configuration of transducers of similar frequency. For the purposes of image interpretation, the curvilinear transducer gave better reflection of the lateral muscle border than the linear transducer, suggesting it as the preferable for imaging lumbar multifidus.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ultrasound transducer shape has no effect on measurements of lumbar multifidus muscle size

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, Thomaes et al (2012) Other studies comparing MRI and RUSI measures of different muscles have shown good results but differing analytical techniques limits the comparison to the present study. The CSA of lumbar multifidus was compared using MRI and RUSI at vertebral levels from L2 to S1 and no significant differences were found, despite differences in position for imaging (Hides, Richardson, 1995). Measures of cervical multifidus muscle from C4 to C6 was also shown to be valid for thickness (R 2 = 0.42 to 0.64) but not for CSA (R 2 = 0.11 to 0.39) or width (R 2 = 0.16-0.69) (Lee, Tseng, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have reported RUSI as a valid method for measuring the size of muscles when compared to MRI, including; the lumbar multifidus (Hides et al , 1995), cervical multifidus (Lee et al , 2007), abdominals (Hides et al , 2006), trapezius (O'Sullivan et al , 2009), quadriceps (Walton et al , 1997, Reeves, Maganaris, 2004, Thomaes et al , 2012 and anterior hip muscles (Mendis et al , 2010). A systematic review of 13 studies on the validity of using RUSI compared with MRI or computed tomography (CT) concluded that RUSI can provide valid measurements of skeletal muscles (Pretorius and Keating, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of measuring distal vastus medialis muscle using rehabilitative ultrasound imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stokes, M. (2014) "Validity of measuring distal vastus medialis muscle using rehabilitative ultrasound imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging". Manual Therapy, 19(3) pp259-263The final, fully proofed and peer-reviewed journal article is available from the publisher online, via the following link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1356689X14000137 Objective: This study aimed to validate RUSI against MRI for the linear measurements of the distal fibres of vastus medialis muscle in the thigh.Twelve healthy male participants were recruited from a local university population. The distal portion of their right vastus medialis was imaged with the participant in long-sitting, using MRI and RUSI whilst the leg was in extension and neutral hip rotation. Cross sectional area (CSA) and three linear measures were taken from the MRI and compared with the same linear measures from RUSI.Statistical analysis included comparison of MRI and RUSI measures using the paired t-test and correlation using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC 3,1).Mean differences between the linear measures taken from the MRI and RUSI were -0.5mm to 2.9mm (95% confidence intervals -0.6 to 8.3mm), which were not statistically different (p>0.05) and were highly correlated (ICCs3,1 0.84-0.94). Correlations between the three linear measurements and muscle CSA ranged from r=0.23 to 0.87, the greatest being muscle thickness. Multiplying the linear measures did not improve the correlation of 0.87 found for muscle thickness.Linear measures of vastus medialis depth made using RUSI were shown to be as valid as using MRI.Muscle thickness measures using RUSI could be used within an objective assessment of this muscle.

show abstract

Spine and Pelvis

Cook¹,

Khan²

2003

Handbook of Sports Medicine and Science: Basketball

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasonography of the Lumbar Multifidus Muscle

Cited by 253 publications

References 0 publications

Ultrasound transducer shape has no effect on measurements of lumbar multifidus muscle size

Ultrasound transducer shape has no effect on measurements of lumbar multifidus muscle size

Validity of measuring distal vastus medialis muscle using rehabilitative ultrasound imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging

Spine and Pelvis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About