INTRODUCTION: Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are non-invasive methods that can be performed repeatedly and without discomfort. In the assessment of neuromuscular disorders it is unknown if they provide complementary information. In this study we tested this for patients with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD). METHODS: We performed quantitative muscle ultrasound (QMUS) and quantitative MRI (QMRI) of the legs in 5 men with FSHD. RESULTS: The correlation between QMUS-determined z-scores and QMRI-determined muscle fraction and T1 signal intensity (SI) was very high. QMUS had a wider dynamic range than QMRI, whereas QMRI could detect inhomogeneous distribution of pathology over the length of the muscles. CONCLUSIONS: Both QMUS and QMRI are well suited for imaging muscular dystrophy. The wider dynamic range of QMUS can be advantageous in the follow-up of advanced disease stages, whereas QMRI seems preferable in pathologies such as FSHD that affect deep muscle layers and show inhomogeneous abnormality distributions.
INTRODUCTION: Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are non-invasive methods that can be performed repeatedly and without discomfort. In the assessment of neuromuscular disorders it is unknown if they provide complementary information. In this study we tested this for patients with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD). METHODS: We performed quantitative muscle ultrasound (QMUS) and quantitative MRI (QMRI) of the legs in 5 men with FSHD. RESULTS: The correlation between QMUS-determined z-scores and QMRI-determined muscle fraction and T1 signal intensity (SI) was very high. QMUS had a wider dynamic range than QMRI, whereas QMRI could detect inhomogeneous distribution of pathology over the length of the muscles. CONCLUSIONS: Both QMUS and QMRI are well suited for imaging muscular dystrophy. The wider dynamic range of QMUS can be advantageous in the follow-up of advanced disease stages, whereas QMRI seems preferable in pathologies such as FSHD that affect deep muscle layers and show inhomogeneous abnormality distributions.
Authors: Sisir Koppaka; Irina Shklyar; Seward B Rutkove; Basil T Darras; Brian W Anthony; Craig M Zaidman; Jim S Wu Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Hala Abdulhady; Hossam M Sakr; Nermine S Elsayed; Tamer A El-Sobky; Nagia Fahmy; Amr M Saadawy; Heba Elsedfy Journal: Acta Myol Date: 2022-03-31
Authors: Rianne J M Goselink; Tim H A Schreuder; Karlien Mul; Nicol C Voermans; Maaike Pelsma; Imelda J M de Groot; Nens van Alfen; Bas Franck; Thomas Theelen; Richard J Lemmers; Jean K Mah; Silvère M van der Maarel; Baziel G van Engelen; Corrie E Erasmus Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Karlien Mul; Corinne G C Horlings; Sanne C C Vincenten; Nicol C Voermans; Baziel G M van Engelen; Nens van Alfen Journal: J Neurol Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Michael O Harris-Love; Reza Monfaredi; Catheeja Ismail; Marc R Blackman; Kevin Cleary Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 5.750