BACKGROUND: Paraspinal musculature forms one of the largest muscle compartments of the human body, but evidence for regional variation of its composition and dependency on gender or body mass index (BMI) is scarce. METHODS: This study applied six-echo chemical shift encoding-based water-fat magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3 Tesla in 76 subjects (24 males and 52 females, age: 40.0±13.7 years, BMI: 25.4±5.6 kg/m2) to evaluate the proton density fat fraction (PDFF) of psoas muscles and erector spinae muscles, with the latter being divided into three segments in relation to levels of spine anatomy (L3-L5, T12-L2, and T9-T11). RESULTS: For the psoas muscles and the erector spinae muscles (L3-L5), gender differences in PDFF values were observed (PDFF psoas muscles: males: 5.1%±3.4% vs. females: 6.0%±2.2%, P=0.006; PDFF erector spinae muscles L3-L5: males: 10.7%±7.6% vs. females: 18.2%±6.8%, P<0.001). Furthermore, the PDFF of the erector spinae muscles (L3-L5) showed higher PDFF values when compared to the other segments (PDFF erector spinae muscles L3-L5 vs. T12-L2: P<0.001; PDFF erector spinae muscles L3-L5 vs. T9-T11: P<0.001) and showed to be independent of BMI, which was not the case for the other segments (T12-L2 or T9-T11) or the psoas muscles. When considering age and BMI as control variables, correlations of PDFF between segments of the erector spinae muscles remained significant for both genders. CONCLUSIONS: This study explored regional variation of paraspinal muscle composition and dependency on gender and BMI, thus offering new insights into muscle physiology. The PDFF of the erector spinae muscles (L3-L5) was independent of BMI, suggesting that this level may be suited for representative paraspinal muscle segmentation and PDFF extraction as a biomarker for muscle alterations in the future. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Paraspinal musculature forms one of the largest muscle compartments of the human body, but evidence for regional variation of its composition and dependency on gender or body mass index (BMI) is scarce. METHODS: This study applied six-echo chemical shift encoding-based water-fat magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3 Tesla in 76 subjects (24 males and 52 females, age: 40.0±13.7 years, BMI: 25.4±5.6 kg/m2) to evaluate the proton density fat fraction (PDFF) of psoas muscles and erector spinae muscles, with the latter being divided into three segments in relation to levels of spine anatomy (L3-L5, T12-L2, and T9-T11). RESULTS: For the psoas muscles and the erector spinae muscles (L3-L5), gender differences in PDFF values were observed (PDFF psoas muscles: males: 5.1%±3.4% vs. females: 6.0%±2.2%, P=0.006; PDFF erector spinae muscles L3-L5: males: 10.7%±7.6% vs. females: 18.2%±6.8%, P<0.001). Furthermore, the PDFF of the erector spinae muscles (L3-L5) showed higher PDFF values when compared to the other segments (PDFF erector spinae muscles L3-L5 vs. T12-L2: P<0.001; PDFF erector spinae muscles L3-L5 vs. T9-T11: P<0.001) and showed to be independent of BMI, which was not the case for the other segments (T12-L2 or T9-T11) or the psoas muscles. When considering age and BMI as control variables, correlations of PDFF between segments of the erector spinae muscles remained significant for both genders. CONCLUSIONS: This study explored regional variation of paraspinal muscle composition and dependency on gender and BMI, thus offering new insights into muscle physiology. The PDFF of the erector spinae muscles (L3-L5) was independent of BMI, suggesting that this level may be suited for representative paraspinal muscle segmentation and PDFF extraction as a biomarker for muscle alterations in the future. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Thomas Baum; Christian Cordes; Michael Dieckmeyer; Stefan Ruschke; Daniela Franz; Hans Hauner; Jan S Kirschke; Dimitrios C Karampinos Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Dimitrios C Karampinos; Thomas Baum; Lorenzo Nardo; Hamza Alizai; Huanzhou Yu; Julio Carballido-Gamio; S Paran Yap; Ann Shimakawa; Thomas M Link; Sharmila Majumdar Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-11-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Barbara H Janssen; Nicoline B M Voet; Christine I Nabuurs; Hermien E Kan; Jacky W J de Rooy; Alexander C Geurts; George W Padberg; Baziel G M van Engelen; Arend Heerschap Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Thomas Baum; Alexander Rohrmeier; Jan Syväri; Maximilian N Diefenbach; Daniela Franz; Michael Dieckmeyer; Andreas Scharr; Hans Hauner; Stefan Ruschke; Jan S Kirschke; Dimitrios C Karampinos Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Nico Sollmann; Michael Dieckmeyer; Sarah Schlaeger; Alexander Rohrmeier; Jan Syvaeri; Maximilian N Diefenbach; Dominik Weidlich; Stefan Ruschke; Elisabeth Klupp; Daniela Franz; Ernst J Rummeny; Claus Zimmer; Jan S Kirschke; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Thomas Baum Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Bahar Shahidi; Callan L Parra; David B Berry; James C Hubbard; Sara Gombatto; Vinko Zlomislic; R Todd Allen; Jan Hughes-Austin; Steven Garfin; Samuel R Ward Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2017-04-15 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Nico Sollmann; Noah B Bonnheim; Gabby B Joseph; Ravi Chachad; Jiamin Zhou; Zehra Akkaya; Amir M Pirmoazen; Jeannie F Bailey; Xiaojie Guo; Ann A Lazar; Thomas M Link; Aaron J Fields; Roland Krug Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 5.119