4.5 Article

Skeletal muscle area correlates with body surface area in healthy adults

期刊

HEPATOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 313-318

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/hepr.12119

关键词

skeletal muscle area; computed tomography; body surface area; sarcopenia

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan [23591989]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23591989, 25861195] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Depletion of skeletal muscle mass (sarcopenia) predicts survival in patients with cancer or liver cirrhosis. Recently, many reports have used computed tomography (CT) to measure muscle area to define sarcopenia. However, the definition of sarcopenia using CT has not been fully determined. The aim of this study was to establish formulae to calculate the standard area of skeletal muscle. Methods Forty-five healthy adults (24 men and 21 women, aged 21-66 years) who wished to donate part of their liver for transplantation underwent CT. Cross-sectional areas (cm(2)) of skeletal muscle were measured at the caudal end of the third lumbar vertebra. Regression analysis was performed to establish formulae to calculate the standard area of skeletal muscle. A validation conducted on 30 other healthy adults was performed to check the accuracy of formulae. Results Men had a median skeletal muscle area of 155.0 cm(2) (range, 114.0-203.0), compared with 111.7 cm(2) (range, 89.8-139.3) in women (P < 0.001). Furthermore, skeletal muscle area significantly correlated with body surface area (BSA) in men (P < 0.0001, r(2) = 0.60) and women (P < 0.0001, r(2) = 0.78). The formulae to calculate skeletal muscle area were 126.9 x BSA - 66.2 in men and 125.6 x BSA - 81.1 in women. The estimated muscle area significantly correlated with actual muscle area in men (P = 0.003, r(2) = 0.64) and women (P = 0.0001, r(2) = 0.70). Conclusion Sarcopenia can be defined by the difference between measured data and calculated data using our new formulae.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据