4.5 Article

QUANTIFICATION OF MUSCLE VOLUME BY ECHOGRAPHY: COMPARISON WITH MRI DATA ON SUBJECTS IN LONG-TERM BED REST

期刊

ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 35, 期 7, 页码 1092-1097

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2009.01.004

关键词

Muscle; Atrophy; Echography; MRI; Bed rest

资金

  1. European Space Agency (ESA)
  2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the USA (NASA)
  3. Canadian Space Agency (CSA)
  4. French space agency Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES)
  5. NASA [NNJ04HF72G]
  6. CNES [4800000326]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of an echographic method for measuring the change in leg muscle volume against the gold standard, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Leg muscle volume was measured using an echographic scanner, which consisted of two metallic rails on which a probe holder moved via an electric engine. Ten to 20 transverse muscle views were collected along the area scanned, and the muscle cross-sectional area (CSA, cm(2)) was measured on each of them. The integration of all the CSAs along the scanned area provided the muscle volume (cm(3)). Echographic results were compared with MRI data on 24 subjects undergoing 60 d of bed rest (8 control Con, 8 with exercise countermeasures Ex and 8 with nutrition countermeasures Nut). The vastus intermedius (VI) and the vastus medialis (VM) volumes decreased significantly and similarly in both Con and Nut (VI, -17%; VM, -21%; p < 0.02). In the Ex group, the VI and VM did not change significantly. The correlation coefficient between the muscle volume change measured with the echographic and MRI methods was 0.78. The present study confirms that the echographic scanner is sufficiently accurate for assessing muscle volume changes and detects the effect of exercise countermeasures on muscle volume during long-term bed rest (E-mail: arbeille@med.univ-tours.fr) (C) 2009 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.d

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