Comparison of Ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Measurement of Lumbar Muscles

Chang Su Kim; Young Ha Woo; Dae Moo Shim; Tae Kyun Kim; Jeong Mi Lee; Bong Jun Jang; Byung Min Yoo

doi:10.4055/jkoa.2016.51.5.371

Journal List > J Korean Orthop Assoc > v.51(5) > 1013468

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Woo, Shim, Kim, Lee, Jang, and Yoo: Comparison of Ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Measurement of Lumbar Muscles

Original Article

Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association 2016; 51(5): 371-377.

Published online: 26 October 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4055/jkoa.2016.51.5.371

Comparison of Ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Measurement of Lumbar Muscles

Chang Su Kim, M.D., Young Ha Woo, M.D.^*, Dae Moo Shim, M.D., Ph.D.^†, Tae Kyun Kim, M.D., Ph.D.^†, Jeong Mi Lee, M.D., Ph.D.^‡, Bong Jun Jang, M.D.^†, Byung Min Yoo, M.D.^†

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea.

^*Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Bumin Hospital Busan, Busan, Korea.

^†Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Iksan, Korea.

^‡Department of Preventive Medicine, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Iksan, Korea.

Correspondence to: Young Ha Woo, M.D. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Bumin Hospital Busan, 59 Mandeok-daero, Bukgu, Busan 46555, Korea. TEL: +82-51-330-3021, FAX: +82-51-337-5041, woo0ha@naver.com

Received 2 December 2015 Revised 5 March 2016 Accepted 6 April 2016

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography measurement of peri-lumbar muscle atrophy which is thought to be a cause of low back pain.

Materials and Methods

Eighty-two patients (44 males, 38 females) who visited Wonkang University Hospital from March, 2015 to August, 2015 complaining of lumbar back pain and underwent lumbar MRI were enrolled in this study. Cross section area (CSA_MRI) and muscle thickness (MT_MRI) of psoas major (PS) and lumbar extensor (LM) located on both sides of L4/5 and L3/4 was measured by MRI, and sono measurement of thickness of the same muscle (MT_US) at the same level of that MRI measurement were analyzed.

Results

In correlation analysis of PS CSA_MRI and PS MT_US is the correlation coefficient of L4/5 was 0.136 (p=0.64), L3/4 right (Rt) was 0.070 (p=0.81), and L3/4 left (Lt) was 0.288 (p=0.32). PS CSA_MRI at L4/5 Rt showed that correlation coefficient of PS MT_US showed a positive correlation to 0.559 (p=0.04). In analysis of the PS MT_MRI and PS MT_US, the correlation coefficient of L4/5 Rt was measured by a 0.316 (p=0.27), L4/5 Lt was 0.022 (p=0.94), L3/4 Rt was 0.236 (p=0.41), and L3/4 Lt did not show a significant result with 0.287 (p=0.31). In the results of correlation analysis of the LM MT_MRI and LM MT_US, the correlation coefficient of L4/5 Rt was 0.207 (p=0.49), L4/5 Lt was 0.051 (p=0.86), and L3/4 was Rt 0.048 (p=0.87), L3/4 Lt did not show a significant value with 0.154 (p=0.61).

Conclusion

This study proved that muscle volume obtained from ultrasono is effective for evaluation of cross-sectional area of lumbar muscle.

Keywords: ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, lumbar muscle cross-sectional area, peri-lumbar muscle atrophy

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Measurement of the multifidus muscle thickness between subcutaneous layer and muscle layer on the longitudinal scan.

Figure 2

Measurement of the psoas muscle thickness between the surface and deep connections on the transverse scan.

Figure 3

This shows the thickness of psoas major muscle and multifidus muscle and the cross sectional areas of psoas major muscle.

Table 1

Relation of PS CSA MRI and PS MT US (p-Value)

PS, psoas muscle; CSA, cross sectional area; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MT, muscle thickness; US, ultrasonography; RT, right; LT, left.

Table 2

Relation of PS MT MRI and PS MT US (p-Value)

PS, psoas muscle; MT, muscle thickness; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; US, ultrasonography; RT, right; LT, left.

Table 3

Relation of LM MT MRI and LM MT US (p-Value)

LM, lumbar multifidus; MT, muscle thickness; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; US, ultrasonography; RT, right; LT, left.

Table 4

Reliability of Ultrasound

^*Pearson correlation coefficient (p-value<0.05). ^†Cronbach α (p-value<0.05). PS, psoas muscle; CSA, cross sectional area; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MT, muscle thickness; US, ultrasonography; LM, lumbar multifidus.

Notes

^{CONFLICTS OF INTEREST} The authors have nothing to disclose.

References

1. Kirchmair L, Entner T, Wissel J, Moriggl B, Kapral S, Mitterschiffthaler G. A study of the paravertebral anatomy for ultrasound-guided posterior lumbar plexus block. Anesth Analg. 2001; 93:477–481.

2. Nofsinger C, Konin JG. Diagnostic ultrasound in sports medicine: current concepts and advances. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2009; 17:25–30.

3. Hodges PW, Pengel LH, Herbert RD, Gandevia SC. Measurement of muscle contraction with ultrasound imaging. Muscle Nerve. 2003; 27:682–692.

4. McMeeken JM, Beith ID, Newham DJ, Milligan P, Critchley DJ. The relationship between EMG and change in thickness of transversus abdominis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004; 19:337–342.

5. Bunce SM, Moore AP, Hough AD. M-mode ultrasound: a reliable measure of transversus abdominis thickness? Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002; 17:315–317.

6. Kiesel KB, Uhl TL, Underwood FB, Rodd DW, Nitz AJ. Measurement of lumbar multifidus muscle contraction with rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. Man Ther. 2007; 12:161–166.

7. Van K, Hides JA, Richardson CA. The use of real-time ultrasound imaging for biofeedback of lumbar multifidus muscle contraction in healthy subjects. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006; 36:920–925.

8. Kamaz M, Kireşi D, Oğuz H, Emlik D, Levendoğlu F. CT measurement of trunk muscle areas in patients with chronic low back pain. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2007; 13:144–148.

9. Shim DM, Kim TK, Lee SJ, Song SY. Comparison of ultrasonography and MRI in measuring of cervical soft tissue structure. J Korean Orthop Assoc. 2011; 46:282–287.

10. Richardson C, Jull G, Hodges P, Hides J, Panjabi MM. Therapeutic exercise for spinal segmental stabilization in low back pain: scientific basis and clinical approach. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone;1999.

11. Kay AG. An extensive literature review of the lumbar multifidus: anatomy. J Man Manip Ther. 2000; 8:102–114.

12. Arbanas J, Klasan GS, Nikolic M, Jerkovic R, Miljanovic I, Malnar D. Fibre type composition of the human psoas major muscle with regard to the level of its origin. J Anat. 2009; 215:636–641.

13. Stokes M, Rankin G, Newham DJ. Ultrasound imaging of lumbar multifidus muscle: normal reference ranges for measurements and practical guidance on the technique. Man Ther. 2005; 10:116–126.

14. Macintosh JE, Valencia F, Bogduk N, Munro RR. The morphology of the human lumbar multifidus. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1986; 1:196–204.

15. Bogduk N, Macintosh JE, Pearcy MJ. A universal model of the lumbar back muscles in the upright position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992; 17:897–913.

16. Hides JA, Cooper DH, Stokes MJ. Diagnostic ultrasound imaging for measurement of the lumbar multifidus muscle in normal young adults. Physiother Theory Pract. 1992; 8:19–26.

17. Hoshikawa Y, Muramatsu M, Iida T, et al. Influence of the psoas major and thigh muscularity on 100-m times in junior sprinters. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006; 38:2138–2143.

18. Hashimoto BE, Kramer DJ, Wiitala L. Applications of musculoskeletal sonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 1999; 27:293–318.

19. Stokes M, Hides JA, Nassiri DK. Musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging: Diagnostic and treatment aid in rehabilitation. Phys Ther Rev. 1997; 2:73–92.

20. Iannotti JP, Ciccone J, Buss DD, et al. Accuracy of officebased ultrasonography of the shoulder for the diagnosis of rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87:1305–1311.

21. Hides JA, Richardson CA, Jull GA. Multifidus muscle recovery is not automatic after resolution of acute, first-episode low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996; 21:2763–2769.

22. Shim DM, Kim TK, Oh SK, Lee SJ, Yang HS. Comparison of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in measurement of lumbar spine anatomic structures. J Korean Orthop Assoc. 2012; 47:140–145.

23. Takai Y, Katsumata Y, Kawakami Y, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Ultrasound method for estimating the cross-sectional area of the psoas major muscle. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011; 43:2000–2004.

24. Lee JP, Tseng WY, Shau YW, Wang CL, Wang HK, Wang SF. Measurement of segmental cervical multifidus contraction by ultrasonography in asymptomatic adults. Man Ther. 2007; 12:286–294.

TOOLS

Similar articles