Martino V Franchi, Daniel P Fitze1, Brent J Raiteri2, Daniel Hahn, Jörg Spörri1. 1. Sports Medical Research Group, Department of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, SWITZERLAND. 2. Faculty of Sports Science, Human Movement Science, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, GERMANY.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare biceps femoris long head (BFlh) fascicle length (Lf) obtained with different ultrasound-based approaches: 1) single ultrasound images and linear Lf extrapolation, 2) single ultrasound images and one of two different trigonometric equations (termed equations A and B), and 3) extended field of view (EFOV) ultrasound images. METHODS: Thirty-seven elite alpine skiers (21.7 ± 2.8 yr) without a previous history of hamstring strain injury were tested. Single ultrasound images were collected with a 5-cm linear transducer from BFlh at 50% femur length and were compared with whole muscle scans acquired by EFOV ultrasound. RESULTS: The intrasession reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC3,k]) of Lf measurements was very high for both single ultrasound images (i.e., Lf estimated by linear extrapolation; ICC3,k = 0.96-0.99, SEM = 0.18 cm) and EFOV scans (ICC3,k = 0.91-0.98, SEM = 0.19 cm). Although extrapolation methods showed cases of Lf overestimation and underestimation when compared with EFOV scans, mean Lf measured from EFOV scans (8.07 ± 1.36 cm) was significantly shorter than Lf estimated by trigonometric equations A (9.98 ± 2.12 cm, P < 0.01) and B (8.57 ± 1.59 cm, P = 0.03), but not significantly different from Lf estimated with manual linear extrapolation (8.40 ± 1.68 cm, P = 0.13). Bland-Altman analyses revealed mean differences in Lf obtained from EFOV scans and those estimated from equation A, equation B, and manual linear extrapolation of 1.91 ± 2.1, 0.50 ± 1.0, and 0.33 ± 1.0 cm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The typical extrapolation methods used for estimating Lf from single ultrasound images are reliable within the same session, but not accurate for estimating BFlh Lf at rest with a 5-cm field of view. We recommend that EFOV scans are implemented to accurately determine intervention-related Lf changes in BFlh.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare biceps femoris long head (BFlh) fascicle length (Lf) obtained with different ultrasound-based approaches: 1) single ultrasound images and linear Lf extrapolation, 2) single ultrasound images and one of two different trigonometric equations (termed equations A and B), and 3) extended field of view (EFOV) ultrasound images. METHODS: Thirty-seven elite alpine skiers (21.7 ± 2.8 yr) without a previous history of hamstring strain injury were tested. Single ultrasound images were collected with a 5-cm linear transducer from BFlh at 50% femur length and were compared with whole muscle scans acquired by EFOV ultrasound. RESULTS: The intrasession reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC3,k]) of Lf measurements was very high for both single ultrasound images (i.e., Lf estimated by linear extrapolation; ICC3,k = 0.96-0.99, SEM = 0.18 cm) and EFOV scans (ICC3,k = 0.91-0.98, SEM = 0.19 cm). Although extrapolation methods showed cases of Lf overestimation and underestimation when compared with EFOV scans, mean Lf measured from EFOV scans (8.07 ± 1.36 cm) was significantly shorter than Lf estimated by trigonometric equations A (9.98 ± 2.12 cm, P < 0.01) and B (8.57 ± 1.59 cm, P = 0.03), but not significantly different from Lf estimated with manual linear extrapolation (8.40 ± 1.68 cm, P = 0.13). Bland-Altman analyses revealed mean differences in Lf obtained from EFOV scans and those estimated from equation A, equation B, and manual linear extrapolation of 1.91 ± 2.1, 0.50 ± 1.0, and 0.33 ± 1.0 cm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The typical extrapolation methods used for estimating Lf from single ultrasound images are reliable within the same session, but not accurate for estimating BFlh Lf at rest with a 5-cm field of view. We recommend that EFOV scans are implemented to accurately determine intervention-related Lf changes in BFlh.
Authors: Matthew Cuthbert; Nicholas Ripley; John J McMahon; Martin Evans; G Gregory Haff; Paul Comfort Journal: Sports Med Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Hans-Peter Wiesinger; Manuel Scharinger; Alexander Kösters; Christoph Gressenbauer; Erich Müller Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 4.379