BACKGROUND: Changes in muscle fat composition as for example observed in sarcopenia, affect physical performance and muscular function, like strength and power. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare 6-point Dixon magnetic resonance imaging and multi-echo magnetic resonance spectroscopy sequences to quantify muscle fat. Setting, participants and measurements: Two groups were recruited (G1: 23 healthy young men (28 ± 4 years), G2: 56 men with sarcopenia (80 ± 5 years)). Proton density fat fraction was measured with a 6-point product and a 6-point prototype Dixon sequence in the left thigh muscle and with a high-speed multi-echo T2*-corrected H1 magnetic resonance spectroscopy sequence within the semitendinosus muscle of the left thigh. To evaluate the comparability among the different methods, Bland-Altman and linear regression analyses of the proton density fat fraction results were performed. RESULTS: Mean differences ± 1.96 * standard deviation between spectroscopy and 6pt Dixon sequences were 1.9 ± 3.3% and 1.5 ± 3.6% for the product and prototype sequences, respectively. High correlations were measured between the proton density fat fraction results of the 6-point Dixon sequences and spectroscopy (R = 0.95 for the product sequence and R = 0.97 for the prototype sequence). CONCLUSIONS: Dixon imaging and spectroscopy sequences show comparable accuracy for fat measurements in the thigh. Spectroscopy is a local measurement, whereas Dixon sequences provide maps of the fat distribution. The high correlations of the 6-point Dixon sequences with spectroscopy support their clinical use. They provide higher spatial resolution than spectroscopy, but are not suitable for a more complicated spectral analysis to separate extra- and intramyocellular lipids.
BACKGROUND: Changes in muscle fat composition as for example observed in sarcopenia, affect physical performance and muscular function, like strength and power. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare 6-point Dixon magnetic resonance imaging and multi-echo magnetic resonance spectroscopy sequences to quantify muscle fat. Setting, participants and measurements: Two groups were recruited (G1: 23 healthy young men (28 ± 4 years), G2: 56 men with sarcopenia (80 ± 5 years)). Proton density fat fraction was measured with a 6-point product and a 6-point prototype Dixon sequence in the left thigh muscle and with a high-speed multi-echo T2*-corrected H1 magnetic resonance spectroscopy sequence within the semitendinosus muscle of the left thigh. To evaluate the comparability among the different methods, Bland-Altman and linear regression analyses of the proton density fat fraction results were performed. RESULTS: Mean differences ± 1.96 * standard deviation between spectroscopy and 6pt Dixon sequences were 1.9 ± 3.3% and 1.5 ± 3.6% for the product and prototype sequences, respectively. High correlations were measured between the proton density fat fraction results of the 6-point Dixon sequences and spectroscopy (R = 0.95 for the product sequence and R = 0.97 for the prototype sequence). CONCLUSIONS: Dixon imaging and spectroscopy sequences show comparable accuracy for fat measurements in the thigh. Spectroscopy is a local measurement, whereas Dixon sequences provide maps of the fat distribution. The high correlations of the 6-point Dixon sequences with spectroscopy support their clinical use. They provide higher spatial resolution than spectroscopy, but are not suitable for a more complicated spectral analysis to separate extra- and intramyocellular lipids.
Entities:
Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging; magnetic resonance spectroscopy; sarcopenia; thigh
Authors: Mansour Ghasemikaram; Oliver Chaudry; Armin M Nagel; Michael Uder; Franz Jakob; Wolfgang Kemmler; Matthias Kohl; Klaus Engelke Journal: Geroscience Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 7.713
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: Anton Faron; Claus C Pieper; Frederic C Schmeel; Alois M Sprinkart; Daniel L R Kuetting; Rolf Fimmers; Jonel Trebicka; Hans H Schild; Carsten Meyer; Daniel Thomas; Julian A Luetkens Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Klaus Engelke; Mansour Ghasemikaram; Oliver Chaudry; Michael Uder; Armin M Nagel; Franz Jakob; Wolfgang Kemmler Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2022-05-28 Impact factor: 4.481
Authors: Oliver Chaudry; Andreas Friedberger; Alexandra Grimm; Michael Uder; Armin Michael Nagel; Wolfgang Kemmler; Klaus Engelke Journal: MAGMA Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Matthew Farrow; John Biglands; Steven Tanner; Elizabeth M A Hensor; Maya H Buch; Paul Emery; Ai Lyn Tan Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 7.580