Magda Marcon1,2, Nicole Berger3, Andrei Manoliu4, Michael A Fischer5, Daniel Nanz6, Gustav Andreisek7, Erika J Ulbrich8. 1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Ramistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. magda.marcon@usz.ch. 2. Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Medical and Biological Sciences, University Hospital "Santa Maria della Misericordia", P.le S. Maria della Misericordia, 33100, Udine, Italy. magda.marcon@usz.ch. 3. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Ramistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. nicole.berger@usz.ch. 4. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Ramistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. andrei.manoliu@usz.ch. 5. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Ramistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. MichaelAlexander.Fischer@usz.ch. 6. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Ramistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. Daniel.Nanz@usz.ch. 7. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Ramistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. gustav@andreisek.de. 8. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Ramistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. Erika.Ulbrich@usz.ch.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine normative values for volume and fat content of the gluteus medius (GMed) and minimus (GMin) muscle in healthy volunteers and to evaluate their dependence on age, gender and leg dominance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IRB approval was obtained for this study. 80 healthy volunteers (females, 40; males, 40; age range 20-62 years), divided into four age groups, were included. Fat- and water-signal-separated MR images of the pelvis were acquired on a 3.0 T MR with a 3-point mDIXON sequence. Normalized volume and fat-signal fraction (FSF) of the GMed (ViGMed, FSFGMed) and GMin (ViGMin, FSFGMin) muscles were determined. RESULTS: The overall mean volumes (normalized) and FSF ± SD: ViGMed 105.13 ± 16.30 cm(3); ViGMin 30.24 ± 5.15 cm(3); FSFGMed 8.13 ± 1.70 % and FSFGMin 9.89 ± 2.72 %. Comparing different age subgroups within each gender no significant differences were found concerning the volumes and FSFs (except FSFGMin in male subgroup aged 20-29 versus 50-62 years, P = 0.014). Comparing FSFs differences between the two genders, only in 20-29 years subgroup, FSFGMed (P =0.003) and FSFGMin (P =0.002) were greater in female. Volume differences between the two legs were not significant (P > 0.077); FSFGMed and FSFGMin (P =0.005 for both) were significantly lower in the dominant leg in female but not in male group (P = 0.454 for FSFGMed and P = 0.643 for FSFMin). CONCLUSION: No age dependency was evident for volume normative data for GMed and GMin and normative data for FSF values showed no age- or gender dependency.
OBJECTIVE: To determine normative values for volume and fat content of the gluteus medius (GMed) and minimus (GMin) muscle in healthy volunteers and to evaluate their dependence on age, gender and leg dominance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IRB approval was obtained for this study. 80 healthy volunteers (females, 40; males, 40; age range 20-62 years), divided into four age groups, were included. Fat- and water-signal-separated MR images of the pelvis were acquired on a 3.0 T MR with a 3-point mDIXON sequence. Normalized volume and fat-signal fraction (FSF) of the GMed (ViGMed, FSFGMed) and GMin (ViGMin, FSFGMin) muscles were determined. RESULTS: The overall mean volumes (normalized) and FSF ± SD: ViGMed 105.13 ± 16.30 cm(3); ViGMin 30.24 ± 5.15 cm(3); FSFGMed 8.13 ± 1.70 % and FSFGMin 9.89 ± 2.72 %. Comparing different age subgroups within each gender no significant differences were found concerning the volumes and FSFs (except FSFGMin in male subgroup aged 20-29 versus 50-62 years, P = 0.014). Comparing FSFs differences between the two genders, only in 20-29 years subgroup, FSFGMed (P =0.003) and FSFGMin (P =0.002) were greater in female. Volume differences between the two legs were not significant (P > 0.077); FSFGMed and FSFGMin (P =0.005 for both) were significantly lower in the dominant leg in female but not in male group (P = 0.454 for FSFGMed and P = 0.643 for FSFMin). CONCLUSION: No age dependency was evident for volume normative data for GMed and GMin and normative data for FSF values showed no age- or gender dependency.
Entities:
Keywords:
DIXON; Fatty infiltration; Hip muscles; MR; Normative values
Authors: B H Goodpaster; C L Carlson; M Visser; D E Kelley; A Scherzinger; T B Harris; E Stamm; A B Newman Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2001-06
Authors: J Machann; C Thamer; B Schnoedt; N Stefan; M Stumvoll; H-U Haring; C D Claussen; A Fritsche; F Schick Journal: MAGMA Date: 2005-07-06 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Bernard Mengiardi; Marius R Schmid; Norbert Boos; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Florian Brunner; Achim Elfering; Juerg Hodler Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Mario Inacio; Alice S Ryan; Woei-Nan Bair; Michelle Prettyman; Brock A Beamer; Mark W Rogers Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Thomas Pacicco; Shayna Ratner; Yin Xi; Takeshi Yokoo; David Fetzer; Orhan K Oz; Craig D Rubin; Avneesh Chhabra Journal: Indian J Radiol Imaging Date: 2019 Apr-Jun
Authors: Kristen Koch; Adam I Semciw; Paul K Commean; Travis J Hillen; G Kelley Fitzgerald; John C Clohisy; Marcie Harris-Hayes Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 3.102
Authors: Andreas Friedberger; Camille Figueiredo; Alexandra Grimm; Isabelle d'Oliveira; Tobias Bäuerle; Jürgen Rech; Arnd Kleyer; David Simon; Michael Uder; Georg Schett; Klaus Engelke Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 2.362