| Literature DB >> 35087016 |
Ya-Peng Li1, Chun-Long Liu2, Zhi-Jie Zhang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aims of this study were to (1) calculate the correlation between different tensile force levels and corresponding muscle stiffness both in vitro and in vivo; (2) determine whether muscle stiffness assessed using a MyotonPRO myotonometer can be used to accurately estimate muscle activity level; and (3) evaluate the inter-operator reliability of MyotonPRO-based measurement in assessing biceps brachii muscle (BBM) stiffness. MATERIAL AND METHODS In Experiment I, muscle stiffness, as measured using the MyotonPRO, was obtained at 0 N, 2 N, 4 N, 6 N, 8 N, and 10 N of applied force on 6 fresh medial gastrocnemius muscle specimens. In Experiment II, 11 healthy subjects were recruited. BBM stiffness, assessed by the same device, was obtained at different tensile force levels, from 0 to 50% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). For the reliability test, the score for each subject was quantified by 2 operators (I and II), thrice, at 30-minute intervals on the same day. RESULTS A strong correlation was found between the different tensile force levels, which corresponded to muscle stiffness in vitro (r=0.71-0.95, all P<0.05). In vivo, muscle stiffness increased linearly with an increase of the tensile force levels from 0 to 50% of MVC (r=0.99, P=0.00) and there was a significant difference in BBM stiffness among the incremental isometric tasks (F [1.76, 17.60]=91.52, P=0.00). The inter-operator reliability for the measurement of BBM stiffness was good (ICC=0.86). CONCLUSIONS Our findings indicate that muscle stiffness measured using the MyotonPRO is strongly related to muscle activity level and that the MyotonPRO is a feasible tool for quantifying BBM stiffness as well as for quantifying changes in MVC levels.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35087016 PMCID: PMC8805342 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.934121
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1Experimental setup. The stiffness measurements of the medial gastrocnemius muscle specimens were obtained using the MyotonPRO.
Figure 2(A) Subject was sitting with his elbow in 90° flexion and the point for stiffness measurement was marked on the BBM at about one-third of the total muscle length. (B) The stiffness measurements for the BBM were acquired using the MyotonPRO.
The difference in tensile force levels and corresponding muscle stiffness in vitro and in vivo (N/m).
| Descriptive statistics – stiffness for the different tensile force levels (mean±SD) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment I (in vitro) | 0 N | 2 N | 4 N | 6 N | 8 N | 10 N |
| 284.17±25.25 | 287.17±27.67 | 293.67±37.73 | 319.17±28.36 | 367.83±47.46 | 431.33±61.73 | |
| Experiment II (in vivo) | Rest | 10% of MVC | 20% of MVC | 30% of MVC | 40% of MVC | 50% of MVC |
| 186.21±17.09 | 282.97±42.64 | 324.03±43.27 | 381.42±70.35 | 435.48±84.56 | 472.55±80.23 | |
SD – standard deviation; MVC – maximal voluntary contraction.
Pearson correlation coefficient between the tensile force and stiffness obtained from the material testing machine and the MyotonPRO, respectively.
| Chicken |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0.95 | 0.00 |
| #2 | 0.76 | 0.08 |
| #3 | 0.91 | 0.01 |
| #4 | 0.71 | 0.12 |
| #5 | 0.91 | 0.01 |
| #6 | 0.88 | 0.02 |
Figure 3Correlations between the stiffness of the medial gastrocnemius muscle specimens as measured by the MyotonPRO, and tensile force obtained using the material testing machine.
Figure 4BBM stiffness obtained by the MyotonPRO at all measurement conditions; significant difference for conditions: * rest vs 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% of MVC; # 10% vs 30%, 40%, 50% of MVC; @ 10% vs 20% of MVC; Δ 20% vs 30%, 40%, 50% of MVC; § 30% vs 40%, 50% of MVC; & 40% vs 50% of MVC. Data are presented as group means±standard deviation.
The inter-operator reliability of the MyotonPRO in measurement of BBM stiffness.
| Operator 1 (N/m) | Operator 2 (N/m) | SEM (N/m) | ICC | 95% CI | MDC (N/m) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominant arm | 186.21±17.09 | 182.39±15.94 | 4.81 | 0.86 | 0.49–0.96 | 13.33 |
SEM – standard error of the mean; ICC – intraclass correlation coefficient; MDC – minimum detectable change, 95% CI – 95% confidence interval.