Conrad Rockel1,2, Alireza Akbari1,2, Dinesh A Kumbhare1,3, Michael D Noseworthy4,5,6,7,8. 1. McMaster School of Biomedical Engineering, McMaster University, ETB-406 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. 2. Imaging Research Centre, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 3. Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. McMaster School of Biomedical Engineering, McMaster University, ETB-406 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. nosewor@mcmaster.ca. 5. Imaging Research Centre, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada. nosewor@mcmaster.ca. 6. Medical Physics and Applied Radiation Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. nosewor@mcmaster.ca. 7. Department of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. nosewor@mcmaster.ca. 8. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. nosewor@mcmaster.ca.
Abstract
OBJECT: To assess post-exercise recovery of human calf muscles using dynamic diffusion tensor imaging (dDTI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: DTI data (6 directions, b = 0 and 400 s/mm2) were acquired every 35 s from seven healthy men using a 3T MRI, prior to (4 volumes) and immediately following exercise (13 volumes, ~7.5 min). Exercise consisted of 5-min in-bore repetitive dorsiflexion-eversion foot motion with 0.78 kg resistance. Diffusion tensors calculated at each time point produced maps of mean diffusivity (MD), fractional anisotropy (FA), radial diffusivity (RD), and signal at b = 0 s/mm2 (S0). Region-of-interest (ROI) analysis was performed on five calf muscles: tibialis anterior (ATIB), extensor digitorum longus (EDL) peroneus longus (PER), soleus (SOL), and lateral gastrocnemius (LG). RESULTS: Active muscles (ATIB, EDL, PER) showed significantly elevated initial MD post-exercise, while predicted inactive muscles (SOL, LG) did not (p < 0.0001). The EDL showed a greater initial increase in MD (1.90 × 10-4mm2/s) than ATIB (1.03 × 10-4mm2/s) or PER (8.79 × 10-5 mm2/s) (p = 7.40 × 10-4), and remained significantly elevated across more time points than ATIB or PER. Significant increases were observed in post-exercise EDL S0 relative to other muscles across the majority of time points (p < 0.01 to p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: dDTI can be used to differentiate exercise-induced changes between muscles. These differences are suggested to be related to differences in fiber composition.
OBJECT: To assess post-exercise recovery of humancalf muscles using dynamic diffusion tensor imaging (dDTI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: DTI data (6 directions, b = 0 and 400 s/mm2) were acquired every 35 s from seven healthy men using a 3T MRI, prior to (4 volumes) and immediately following exercise (13 volumes, ~7.5 min). Exercise consisted of 5-min in-bore repetitive dorsiflexion-eversion foot motion with 0.78 kg resistance. Diffusion tensors calculated at each time point produced maps of mean diffusivity (MD), fractional anisotropy (FA), radial diffusivity (RD), and signal at b = 0 s/mm2 (S0). Region-of-interest (ROI) analysis was performed on five calf muscles: tibialis anterior (ATIB), extensor digitorum longus (EDL) peroneus longus (PER), soleus (SOL), and lateral gastrocnemius (LG). RESULTS: Active muscles (ATIB, EDL, PER) showed significantly elevated initial MD post-exercise, while predicted inactive muscles (SOL, LG) did not (p < 0.0001). The EDL showed a greater initial increase in MD (1.90 × 10-4mm2/s) than ATIB (1.03 × 10-4mm2/s) or PER (8.79 × 10-5 mm2/s) (p = 7.40 × 10-4), and remained significantly elevated across more time points than ATIB or PER. Significant increases were observed in post-exercise EDL S0 relative to other muscles across the majority of time points (p < 0.01 to p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: dDTI can be used to differentiate exercise-induced changes between muscles. These differences are suggested to be related to differences in fiber composition.
Entities:
Keywords:
DTI; Exercise; Human; Recovery; Skeletal muscle; Time course
Authors: Naomi M Cermak; Michael D Noseworthy; Jacqueline M Bourgeois; Mark A Tarnopolsky; Martin J Gibala Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Fatemeh Adelnia; Michelle Shardell; Christopher M Bergeron; Kenneth W Fishbein; Richard G Spencer; Luigi Ferrucci; David A Reiter Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: E E Sigmund; S H Baete; T Luo; K Patel; D Wang; I Rossi; A Duarte; M Bruno; D Mossa; A Femia; S Ramachandran; D Stoffel; J S Babb; A G Franks; J Bencardino Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 5.315