OBJECTIVE: Recent developments in electrical impedance myography (EIM) have led to the use of handheld electrode arrays (HEAs) for data acquisition. Although preferable for several reasons, this approach tends to be more affected by subcutaneous fat (SF) than the original approach in which the impedance-measuring electrodes are widely spaced. In this study, we seek to identify the EIM parameter least impacted by subcutaneous fat (SF) when using an HEA. METHODS: 18 normal subjects underwent 50 kHz EIM and ultrasound of the medial gastrocnemius muscles on the dominant side. Coefficients of determination (R(2) values) were calculated for each of the three major EIM variables (reactance, resistance, and phase) and SF thickness. RESULTS: For both resistance and phase, a strong relationship to SF thickness was observed (R(2) = 0.64 and R(2) = 0.70, respectively, p < 0.001 for both). In contrast, for reactance, the relationship was non-significant, with R(2) = 0.07, p = 0.30. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike resistance and phase, both of which are highly impacted by SF thickness, the reactance shows no significant relationship. SIGNIFICANCE: Future clinical studies employing HEA's to perform EIM should evaluate alterations in reactance in addition to those in resistance and phase.
OBJECTIVE: Recent developments in electrical impedance myography (EIM) have led to the use of handheld electrode arrays (HEAs) for data acquisition. Although preferable for several reasons, this approach tends to be more affected by subcutaneous fat (SF) than the original approach in which the impedance-measuring electrodes are widely spaced. In this study, we seek to identify the EIM parameter least impacted by subcutaneous fat (SF) when using an HEA. METHODS: 18 normal subjects underwent 50 kHz EIM and ultrasound of the medial gastrocnemius muscles on the dominant side. Coefficients of determination (R(2) values) were calculated for each of the three major EIM variables (reactance, resistance, and phase) and SF thickness. RESULTS: For both resistance and phase, a strong relationship to SF thickness was observed (R(2) = 0.64 and R(2) = 0.70, respectively, p < 0.001 for both). In contrast, for reactance, the relationship was non-significant, with R(2) = 0.07, p = 0.30. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike resistance and phase, both of which are highly impacted by SF thickness, the reactance shows no significant relationship. SIGNIFICANCE: Future clinical studies employing HEA's to perform EIM should evaluate alterations in reactance in addition to those in resistance and phase.
Authors: Seward B Rutkove; Hui Zhang; David A Schoenfeld; Elizabeth M Raynor; Jeremy M Shefner; Merit E Cudkowicz; Anne B Chin; Ronald Aaron; Carl A Shiffman Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2007-09-25 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Pushpa Narayanaswami; Andrew J Spieker; Phillip Mongiovi; John C Keel; Stefan C Muzin; Seward B Rutkove Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Seward B Rutkove; Kush Kapur; Craig M Zaidman; Jim S Wu; Amy Pasternak; Lavanya Madabusi; Sung Yim; Adam Pacheck; Heather Szelag; Tim Harrington; Basil T Darras Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Dennis E Anderson; Jonathan F Bean; Nicole E Holt; John C Keel; Mary L Bouxsein Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Stefan Schwartz; Tom R Geisbush; Aleksandar Mijailovic; Amy Pasternak; Basil T Darras; Seward B Rutkove Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: W Arnold; Vicki L McGovern; Benjamin Sanchez; Jia Li; Kaitlyn M Corlett; Stephen J Kolb; Seward B Rutkove; Arthur H Burghes Journal: Neurobiol Dis Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 5.996
Authors: Hans G J Kortman; Sarah C Wilder; Tom R Geisbush; Pushpa Narayanaswami; Seward B Rutkove Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 2.833