Biceps brachii muscle hardness assessed by a push-in meter in comparison to ultrasound strain elastography.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 11 2020
20 11 2020
Historique:
received:
24
07
2020
accepted:
09
11
2020
entrez:
21
11
2020
pubmed:
22
11
2020
medline:
31
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study investigated the relationship between push-in meter (PM) and ultrasound strain elastography (USE) for biceps brachii (BB) muscle hardness. BB hardness of 21 young men was assessed by PM and USE during rest and isometric contractions of six different intensities (15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90% of maximal voluntary contraction: MVC) at 30°, 60° and 90° elbow flexion. Muscle hardness (E) was calculated from the force-displacement relationship in PM, and strain ratio (SR) between an acoustic coupler (elastic modulus: 22.6 kPa) and different regions of interest (ROIs) in BB was calculated and converted to Young's modulus (YM) in USE. In resting muscle, E was 26.1 ± 6.4 kPa, and SR and YM for the whole BB was 0.88 ± 0.4 and 30.8 ± 12.8 kPa, respectively. A significant (p < 0.01) correlation was evident between E and logarithmical transformed SR (LTSR) for the ROI of whole BB (r = - 0.626), and E and converted YM (r = 0.615). E increased approximately ninefold from resting to 90% MVC, and E and LTSR (r = - 0.732 to - 0.880), and E and converted YM for the SR above 0.1 were correlated (r = 0.599-0.768, p < 0.01). These results suggest that muscle hardness values obtained by PM and USE are comparable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33219272
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-77330-5
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-77330-5
pmc: PMC7680096
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20308Références
J Appl Biomech. 2016 Aug;32(4):373-8
pubmed: 26957222
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017 May;117(5):843-852
pubmed: 28290056
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000 Mar;26(3):451-6
pubmed: 10773376
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Oct;82(10):1416-20
pubmed: 11588747
J Sport Rehabil. 2019 Sep 1;28(7):711-715
pubmed: 29952699
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45764
pubmed: 23029231
Med Biol Eng Comput. 1993 Nov;31(6):623-7
pubmed: 8145589
Ann Biomed Eng. 2015 Feb;43(2):261-73
pubmed: 25404536
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000 Aug;82(5-6):361-7
pubmed: 10985588
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Jun;84(6):928-32
pubmed: 12808553
Acta Radiol. 2011 Feb 1;52(1):99-105
pubmed: 21498334
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 03;9(7):e101769
pubmed: 24991890
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2008 Oct;34(10):1638-50
pubmed: 18524458
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2010 May;108(5):1389-94
pubmed: 20167669
J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2015 Apr;19(2):327-36
pubmed: 25892389
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005 Feb;20(2):145-54
pubmed: 15621318
Physiol Meas. 2005 Jun;26(3):215-28
pubmed: 15798297
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Mar;83(3):442-9
pubmed: 24495906
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2004;2004:2290-1
pubmed: 17272185
Pol J Radiol. 2016 May 20;81:240-6
pubmed: 27279926
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Nov;90(11):875-86
pubmed: 21552109
Ultrasonics. 2016 Sep;71:127-133
pubmed: 27336792
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018 Feb;28(2):621-629
pubmed: 28513880
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Nov;95(11):2207-19
pubmed: 25064780
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Jan;112(1):105-12
pubmed: 21499883
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 Aug;41(8):2266-71
pubmed: 25944285
Physiol Meas. 2011 Apr;32(4):433-44
pubmed: 21383493
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018 Sep;44(9):1931-1940
pubmed: 29398131
Clin Radiol. 2011 Sep;66(9):815-9
pubmed: 21529793