Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
Comparison of quantitative muscle ultrasound and whole-body muscle MRI in facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy type 1 patients.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fionda Laura, Vanoli Fiammetta, Di Pasquale Antonella, Leonardi Luca, Morino Stefania, Merlonghi Gioia, Lauletta Antonio, Alfieri Girolamo, Costanzo Rocco, Tufano Laura, Rossini Elena, Bucci Elisabetta, Grossi Andrea, Tupler Rossella, Salvetti Marco, Garibaldi Matteo, Antonini Giovanni
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Muscle ultrasound is a fast, non-invasive and cost-effective examination that can identify structural muscular changes by assessing muscle thickness and echointensity (EI) with a quantitative analysis (QMUS). To assess applicability and repeatability of QMUS, we evaluated patients with genetically confirmed facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy type 1 (FSHD1), comparing their muscle ultrasound characteristics with healthy controls and with those detected by MRI. We also evaluated relationships between QMUS and demographic and clinical characteristics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen patients were included in the study. Clinical assessment included MRC sum score, FSHD score and The Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Form (CCEF). QMUS was performed with a linear transducer scanning bilaterally pectoralis major, deltoid, rectus femoris, tibialis anterior and semimembranosus muscles in patients and healthy subjects. For each muscle, we acquired three images, which were analysed calculating muscle EI by computer-assisted grey-scale analysis. QMUS analysis was compared with semiquantitative 1.5 T muscle MRI scale.
RESULTS: All muscles in FSHD patients showed a significant increased echogenicity compared to the homologous muscles in healthy subjects. Older subjects and patients with higher FSHD score presented increased muscle EI. Tibialis anterior MRC showed a significant inverse correlation with EI. Higher median EI was found in muscles with more severe MRI fat replacement.
CONCLUSIONS: QMUS allows quantitative evaluation of muscle echogenicity, displaying a tight correlation with muscular alterations, clinical and MRI data. Although a confirmation on larger sample is needed, our research suggests a possible future application of QMUS in diagnosis and management of muscular disorders.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen patients were included in the study. Clinical assessment included MRC sum score, FSHD score and The Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Form (CCEF). QMUS was performed with a linear transducer scanning bilaterally pectoralis major, deltoid, rectus femoris, tibialis anterior and semimembranosus muscles in patients and healthy subjects. For each muscle, we acquired three images, which were analysed calculating muscle EI by computer-assisted grey-scale analysis. QMUS analysis was compared with semiquantitative 1.5 T muscle MRI scale.
RESULTS: All muscles in FSHD patients showed a significant increased echogenicity compared to the homologous muscles in healthy subjects. Older subjects and patients with higher FSHD score presented increased muscle EI. Tibialis anterior MRC showed a significant inverse correlation with EI. Higher median EI was found in muscles with more severe MRI fat replacement.
CONCLUSIONS: QMUS allows quantitative evaluation of muscle echogenicity, displaying a tight correlation with muscular alterations, clinical and MRI data. Although a confirmation on larger sample is needed, our research suggests a possible future application of QMUS in diagnosis and management of muscular disorders.