Şerife Şeyma TORĞUTALP, Feza KORKUSUZ, Ömer ÖZKAN, Kader Karlı OĞUZ, Şafak PARLAK

Volume and T2 relaxation time measurements of quadriceps femoris and hamstring muscles are reliable and reproducible

Background/aim: Volume and T2 relaxation time measurements of the skeletal muscle provide quantitative information. We aimed to evaluate the interobserver reliability and the intraobserver reproducibility of measurements of volumes and T2 relaxation times of the quadriceps femoris and the hamstring muscles. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional reliability study was conducted on ten recreational athletes. The images of the quadriceps and the hamstring muscles of both limbs were obtained using a 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. Two sports medicine specialists measured muscle volumes from a total of 2560 images and T2 relaxation times from a total of 40 images, and repeated this once more. The intraobserver and interobserver compliance were assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach’s alpha (α). Results: Volume and T2 relaxation time of quadriceps femoris and hamstring muscle measurements with MRI had good to excellent reliability (Muscle volume; intraobserver ICCs: between 0.97 and 0.99, α: between 0.98 and 0.99 and interobserver ICCs: between 0.96 and 0.99, α: 0.99. T2 relaxation time; intraobserver ICCs: between 0.74 and 0.96, α: between 0.85 and 0.98 and interobserver ICCs: between 0.75 and 0.90, α: between 0.85 and 0.95). Conclusion: Volume and T2 relaxation time measurements of the quadriceps femoris and the hamstring muscles are reliable and reproducible.Key words: Magnetic resonance imaging, reliability, reproducibility, skeletal muscle, thigh

PDF

___

1. Franchi MV, Longo S, Mallinson J, Quinlan JI, Taylor T et al. Muscle thickness correlates to muscle cross-sectional area in the assessment of strength training-induced hypertrophy. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 2018; 28 (3): 846-853. doi: 10.1111/sms.12961
2. Scott SH, Engstrom CM, Loeb GE. Morphometry of human thigh muscles. Determination of fascicle architecture by magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Anatomy 1993; 182 (Pt 2): 249-257.
3. Mandić M, Rullman E, Widholm P, Lilja M, Dahlqvist Leinhard O et al. Automated assessment of regional muscle volume and hypertrophy using MRI. Scientific Reports 2020; 10 (1): 2239. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-59267-x
4. Farrow M, Biglands J, Tanner SF, Clegg A, Brown L et al. The effect of ageing on skeletal muscle as assessed by quantitative MR imaging: an association with frailty and muscle strength. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 2021; 33 (2): 291- 301. doi: 10.1007/s40520-020-01530-2
5. Wattjes MP, Kley RA, Fischer D. Neuromuscular imaging in inherited muscle diseases. European Radiology 2010; 20 (10): 2447-2460. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1799-2
6. Lee JC, Mitchell AWM, Healy JC. Imaging of muscle injury in the elite athlete. The British Journal of Radiology 2012; 85 (1016): 1173-1185. doi: 10.1259/bjr/84622172
7. Pons C, Borotikar B, Garetier M, Burdin V, Ben Salem D et al. Quantifying skeletal muscle volume and shape in humans using MRI: a systematic review of validity and reliability. PLoS One 2018; 13 (11): e0207847. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207847
8. Sun H, Xu MT, Wang XQ, Wang MH, Wang BH et al. Comparison thigh skeletal muscles between snowboarding halfpipe athletes and healthy volunteers using quantitative multi-parameter magnetic resonance imaging at rest. Chinese Medical Journal 2018; 131 (9): 1045-1050. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.230740
9. Messina C, Maffi G, Vitale JA, Ulivieri FM, Guglielmi G et al. Diagnostic imaging of osteoporosis and sarcopenia: a narrative review. Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery 2018; 8 (1): 86-99. doi: 10.21037/qims.2018.01.01
10. Henninger HB, Christensen GV, Taylor CE, Kawakami J, Hillyard BS et al. The muscle cross-sectional area on MRI of the shoulder can predict muscle volume. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2019; 478 (4): 871-883. doi: 10.1097/ corr.0000000000001044
11. Cawthon PM. Assessment of lean mass and physical performance in sarcopenia. Journal of Clinical Densitometry 2015; 18 (4): 467-471. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2015.05.063
12. Kim HK, Laor T, Horn PS, Wong B. Quantitative assessment of the T2 relaxation time of the gluteus muscles in children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a comparative study before and after steroid treatment. Korean Journal of Radiology 2010; 11 (3): 304-311. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2010.11.3.304
13. Tate CM, Williams GN, Barrance PJ, Buchanan TS. Lower extremity muscle morphology in young athletes: an MRI-based analysis. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2006; 38 (1): 122-128. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000179400.67734.01
14. Rothwell DT, Williams DJ, Furlong LM. Measuring muscle size and symmetry in healthy adult males using a timeefficient analysis of magnetic resonance images. Physiological Measurement 2019; 40 (6): 064005. doi: 10.1088/1361-6579/ ab2323
15. Wall BT, Morton JP, Van Loon LJ. Strategies to maintain skeletal muscle mass in the injured athlete: nutritional considerations and exercise mimetics. European Journal of Sport Science 2015; 15 (1): 53-62. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2014.936326
16. Mujika I, Rønnestad BR, Martin DT. Effects of increased muscle strength and muscle mass on endurance-cycling performance. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 2016; 11 (3): 283-289. doi: 10.1123/IJSPP.2015-0405
17. Van Melick N, Meddeler BM, Hoogeboom TJ, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MWG, Van Cingel REH. How to determine leg dominance: the agreement between self-reported and observed performance in healthy adults. PLoS One 2017; 12 (12): e0189876. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189876
18. Berg HE, Tedner B, Tesch PA. Changes in lower limb muscle cross-sectional area and tissue fluid volume after transition from standing to supine. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 1993; 148 (4): 379-385. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1993.tb09573.x
19. Kulas AS, Schmitz RJ, Shultz SJ, Waxman JP, Wang HM et al. Bilateral quadriceps and hamstrings muscle volume asymmetries in healthy individuals. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 2018; 36 (3): 963-970. doi: 10.1002/jor.23664
20. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment 1994; 6 (4): 284-290. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
21. Barnouin Y, Butler-Browne G, Voit T, Reversat D, Azzabou N et al. Manual segmentation of individual muscles of the quadriceps femoris using MRI: a reappraisal. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2014; 40 (1): 239-247. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24370
22. Südhoff I, De Guise JA, Nordez A, Jolivet E, Bonneau D et al. 3D-patient-specific geometry of the muscles involved in knee motion from selected MRI images. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing 2009; 47 (6): 579-587. doi: 10.1007/ s11517-009-0466-8
23. Le Troter A, Fouré A, Guye M, Confort-Gouny S, Mattei JP et al. Volume measurements of individual muscles in human quadriceps femoris using atlas-based segmentation approaches. Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine 2016; 29 (2): 245-257. doi: 10.1007/s10334-016-0535-6
24. Maillard SM, Jones R, Owens C, Pilkington C, Woo P et al. Quantitative assessment of MRI T2 relaxation time of thigh muscles in juvenile dermatomyositis. Rheumatology 2004; 43 (5): 603-608. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keh130
25. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyère O et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age and Ageing 2019; 48 (1): 16-31. doi: 10.1093/ ageing/afy169