OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to validate the use of cross-sectional area (CSA) measurements at multiple quadriceps muscle levels for estimating the total muscle volume (TMV), and to define the best correlating measurement level. METHODS: Prospective institutional review board (IRB)-approved study with written informed patient consent. Thighs of thirty-four consecutive patients with ACL-reconstructions (men, 22; women, 12) were imaged at 1.5-T using three-dimensional (3D) spoiled dual gradient-echo sequences. CSA was measured at three levels: 15, 20, and 25 cm above the knee joint line. TMV was determined using dedicated volumetry software with semiautomatic segmentation. Pearson's correlation and regression analysis (including standard error of the estimate, SEE) was used to compare CSA and TMV. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation (SD) for the CSA was 60.6 ± 12.8 cm(2) (range, 35.6-93.4 cm(2)), 71.1 ± 15.1 cm(2) (range, 42.5-108.9 cm(2)) and 74.2 ± 17.1 cm(2) (range, 40.9-115.9 cm(2)) for CSA-15, CSA-20 and CSA-25, respectively. The mean ± SD quadriceps' TMV was 1949 ± 533.7 cm(3) (range, 964.0-3283.0 cm(3)). Pearson correlation coefficient was r = 0.835 (p < 0.01), r = 0.906 (p < 0.01), and r = 0.956 (p < 0.01) for CSA-15, CSA-20 and CSA-25, respectively. Corresponding SEE, expressed as percentage of the TMV, were 15.2%, 11.6% and 8.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The best correlation coefficient between quadriceps CSA and TMV was found for CSA-25, but its clinical application to estimate the TMV is limited by a relatively large SEE. KEY POINTS: • Cross-sectional area was used to estimate QFM size in patients with ACL-reconstruction • A high correlation coefficient exists between quadriceps CSA and volume • Best correlation was seen 25 cm above the knee joint line • A relatively large standard error of the estimate limits CSA application.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to validate the use of cross-sectional area (CSA) measurements at multiple quadriceps muscle levels for estimating the total muscle volume (TMV), and to define the best correlating measurement level. METHODS: Prospective institutional review board (IRB)-approved study with written informed patient consent. Thighs of thirty-four consecutive patients with ACL-reconstructions (men, 22; women, 12) were imaged at 1.5-T using three-dimensional (3D) spoiled dual gradient-echo sequences. CSA was measured at three levels: 15, 20, and 25 cm above the knee joint line. TMV was determined using dedicated volumetry software with semiautomatic segmentation. Pearson's correlation and regression analysis (including standard error of the estimate, SEE) was used to compare CSA and TMV. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation (SD) for the CSA was 60.6 ± 12.8 cm(2) (range, 35.6-93.4 cm(2)), 71.1 ± 15.1 cm(2) (range, 42.5-108.9 cm(2)) and 74.2 ± 17.1 cm(2) (range, 40.9-115.9 cm(2)) for CSA-15, CSA-20 and CSA-25, respectively. The mean ± SD quadriceps' TMV was 1949 ± 533.7 cm(3) (range, 964.0-3283.0 cm(3)). Pearson correlation coefficient was r = 0.835 (p < 0.01), r = 0.906 (p < 0.01), and r = 0.956 (p < 0.01) for CSA-15, CSA-20 and CSA-25, respectively. Corresponding SEE, expressed as percentage of the TMV, were 15.2%, 11.6% and 8.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The best correlation coefficient between quadriceps CSA and TMV was found for CSA-25, but its clinical application to estimate the TMV is limited by a relatively large SEE. KEY POINTS: • Cross-sectional area was used to estimate QFM size in patients with ACL-reconstruction • A high correlation coefficient exists between quadriceps CSA and volume • Best correlation was seen 25 cm above the knee joint line • A relatively large standard error of the estimate limits CSA application.
Authors: Björn Barenius; Magnus Forssblad; Björn Engström; Karl Eriksson Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-08-12 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Ryan L Mizner; Stephanie C Petterson; Jennifer E Stevens; Krista Vandenborne; Lynn Snyder-Mackler Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Scott B Reeder; Charles A McKenzie; Angel R Pineda; Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Anja C Brau; Brian A Hargreaves; Garry E Gold; Jean H Brittain Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: B L Tracy; F M Ivey; D Hurlbut; G F Martel; J T Lemmer; E L Siegel; E J Metter; J L Fozard; J L Fleg; B F Hurley Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 1999-01
Authors: Vivek Kalia; Doris G Leung; Darryl B Sneag; Filippo Del Grande; John A Carrino Journal: Semin Musculoskelet Radiol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 1.777
Authors: Magda Marcon; Nicole Berger; Andrei Manoliu; Michael A Fischer; Daniel Nanz; Gustav Andreisek; Erika J Ulbrich Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Thomas Baum; Stephanie Inhuber; Michael Dieckmeyer; Christian Cordes; Stefan Ruschke; Elisabeth Klupp; Pia M Jungmann; Rosanna Farlock; Holger Eggers; Hendrik Kooijman; Ernst J Rummeny; Ansgar Schwirtz; Jan S Kirschke; Dimitrios C Karampinos Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2016 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Jorge Amestoy; Daniel Pérez-Prieto; Raúl Torres-Claramunt; Juan Francisco Sánchez-Soler; Joan Leal-Blanquet; Jesús Ares-Vidal; Pedro Hinarejos; Joan Carles Monllau Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-06-29