Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and electrical impedance myography for evaluating lumbar skeletal muscle composition
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and electrical impedance myography for evaluating lumbar skeletal muscle composition
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and electrical impedance myography for evaluating lumbar skeletal muscle composition
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and electrical impedance myography for evaluating lumbar skeletal muscle composition
2022
Overview
Background
To compare electrical impedance myography (EIM) and MRI in assessing lumbar skeletal muscle composition.
Methods
One hundred forty-one patients (78 females, mean age 57 ± 19 years) were prospectively enrolled and underwent lumbar spine MRI, EIM with Skulpt®, and clinical evaluation including the questionnaire SARC-F. MRIs were reviewed to assess the Goutallier score of paravertebral muscles at L3 level and to calculate the cross sectional area (CSA) of both psoas, quadratus lumborum, erector spinae, and multifidus muscles on a single axial slice at L3 level, in order to calculate the skeletal muscle index (SMI=CSA/height
2
). We tested the correlation between EIM-derived parameters [body fat percentage (BF%) and muscle quality] and body mass index (BMI), Goutallier score (1–4), SMI, and SARC-F scores (0–10) using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The strength of association was considered large (0.5 to 1.0), medium (0.3 to 0.5), small (0.1 to 0.3).
Results
Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed small (0.26) but significant (
p
< 0.01) positive correlation between BF% obtained with EIM and Goutallier score. Small negative correlation (− 0.22,
p
< 0.01) was found between EIM muscle quality and Goutallier Score. Large negative correlation (− 0.56,
p
< 0.01) was found between SMI and Goutallier Score, while SMI showed small negative correlation with SARC-F (− 0.29,
p
< 0.01). Medium positive correlation was found between Goutallier Score and SARC-F (0.41,
p
< 0.01). BMI showed medium positive correlation with SMI (r = 0.369,
p
< 0.01) and small correlation with EIM muscle quality (r = − 0.291,
p
< 0.05) and BF% (r = 0.227,
p
< 0.05). We found a substantial increase of the strength of associations of BF% and muscle quality with Goutallier in the 18–40 years (r = 0.485 and r = − 0.401, respectively) and in the 41–70 years group (r = 0.448 and r = − 0.365, respectively).
Conclusions
Muscle quality and BF% measured by EIM device showed only small strength of correlation with other quantitative parameters for assessing muscle mass and fat infiltration. Interesting results have been found in younger patients, but Skulpt Chisel™ should be applied cautiously to assess lumbar skeletal muscle composition. This point deserves further investigation and other studies are warranted.
Trial registration
The registration number of this study is 107/INT/2019.
