Glen R Morrell1, Talat A Ikizler2, Xiaorui Chen3, Marta E Heilbrun4, Guo Wei3, Robert Boucher3, Srinivasan Beddhu5. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah. Electronic address: glen.morrell@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah; Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Healthcare System, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigate whether psoas or paraspinous muscle area measured on a single L4-L5 image is a useful measure of whole lean body mass (LBM) compared to dedicated midthigh magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Outpatient dialysis units and a research clinic. SUBJECTS: One hundred five adult participants on maintenance hemodialysis. No control group was used. INTERVENTION: Psoas muscle area, paraspinous muscle area, and midthigh muscle area (MTMA) were measured by magnetic resonance imaging. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: LBM was measured by dual-energy absorptiometry scan. RESULTS: In separate multivariable linear regression models, psoas, paraspinous, and MTMA were associated with increase in LBM. In separate multivariate logistic regression models, C statistics for diagnosis of sarcopenia (defined as <25th percentile of LBM) were 0.69 for paraspinous muscle area, 0.81 for psoas muscle area, and 0.89 for MTMA. With sarcopenia defined as <10th percentile of LBM, the corresponding C statistics were 0.71, 0.92, and 0.94. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that psoas muscle area provides a good measure of whole-body muscle mass, better than paraspinous muscle area but slightly inferior to midthigh measurement. Hence, in body composition studies a single axial MR image at the L4-L5 level can be used to provide information on both fat and muscle and may eliminate the need for time-consuming measurement of muscle area in the thigh.
OBJECTIVE: We investigate whether psoas or paraspinous muscle area measured on a single L4-L5 image is a useful measure of whole lean body mass (LBM) compared to dedicated midthigh magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING:Outpatient dialysis units and a research clinic. SUBJECTS: One hundred five adult participants on maintenance hemodialysis. No control group was used. INTERVENTION: Psoas muscle area, paraspinous muscle area, and midthigh muscle area (MTMA) were measured by magnetic resonance imaging. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: LBM was measured by dual-energy absorptiometry scan. RESULTS: In separate multivariable linear regression models, psoas, paraspinous, and MTMA were associated with increase in LBM. In separate multivariate logistic regression models, C statistics for diagnosis of sarcopenia (defined as <25th percentile of LBM) were 0.69 for paraspinous muscle area, 0.81 for psoas muscle area, and 0.89 for MTMA. With sarcopenia defined as <10th percentile of LBM, the corresponding C statistics were 0.71, 0.92, and 0.94. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that psoas muscle area provides a good measure of whole-body muscle mass, better than paraspinous muscle area but slightly inferior to midthigh measurement. Hence, in body composition studies a single axial MR image at the L4-L5 level can be used to provide information on both fat and muscle and may eliminate the need for time-consuming measurement of muscle area in the thigh.
Authors: Robin L Marcus; Sheldon Smith; Glen Morrell; Odessa Addison; Leland E Dibble; Donna Wahoff-Stice; Paul C Lastayo Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2008-09-18
Authors: M Z Molnar; E Streja; C P Kovesdy; S Bunnapradist; M S Sampaio; J Jing; M Krishnan; A R Nissenson; G M Danovitch; K Kalantar-Zadeh Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Jay Soong-Jin Lee; Kevin He; Calista M Harbaugh; Douglas E Schaubel; Christopher J Sonnenday; Stewart C Wang; Michael J Englesbe; Jonathan L Eliason Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2011-01-07 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Paul C LaStayo; Gordon A Ewy; David D Pierotti; Richard K Johns; Stan Lindstedt Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Y Sheu; L M Marshall; K F Holton; P Caserotti; R M Boudreau; E S Strotmeyer; P M Cawthon; J A Cauley Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: C A Pollock; B J Allen; R A Warden; R J Caterson; N Blagojevic; B Cocksedge; J F Mahony; D A Waugh; L S Ibels Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 1990-07 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Fausto Salaffi; Marina Carotti; Andrea Di Matteo; Luca Ceccarelli; Sonia Farah; Catalina Villota-Eraso; Marco Di Carlo; Andrea Giovagnoni Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 6.313
Authors: Koeun Lee; Yongbin Shin; Jimi Huh; Yu Sub Sung; In Seob Lee; Kwon Ha Yoon; Kyung Won Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 3.500
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: Eberhard Lurz; Hiten Patel; Gerald Lebovic; Claudia Quammie; Jessica P Woolfson; Manuela Perez; Amanda Ricciuto; Paul W Wales; Binita M Kamath; Govind B Chavhan; Peter Jüni; Vicky L Ng Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 12.910
Authors: Julie A Fitzpatrick; Nicolas Basty; Madeleine Cule; Yi Liu; Jimmy D Bell; E Louise Thomas; Brandon Whitcher Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Alberto Romano; Silvia Triarico; Emanuele Rinninella; Luigi Natale; Maria Gabriella Brizi; Marco Cintoni; Pauline Raoul; Palma Maurizi; Giorgio Attinà; Stefano Mastrangelo; Antonio Gasbarrini; Maria Cristina Mele; Antonio Ruggiero Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 5.717