Ultrasound imaging is a valid method of measuring the cross-sectional area of the quadratus femoris muscle.
There is growing recognition of QF muscle pathologies, such as muscle tear, oedema, and fatty infiltration. (5-19) Although there is limited understanding of the function of this muscle, (2-4) atrophy and deterioration in quality of QF has been associated with chronic hip pain, (8,10,13) aging, (5) and prolonged unloading, as during bed rest. (20) Therapeutic exercises that specifically target QF could prevent injury or ongoing dysfunction of the hip joint and promote injury resolution. As QF is small, deep, and has several agonists, conventional strength testing is too global to measure QF function accurately. A specific method of measuring QF muscle size could allow for objective measurements of atrophy and evaluation of the effectiveness of muscle strengthening exercises.
Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provide high resolution images for objective measurement of muscle size (21) and have been used to measure the size of QF. (5,10,20) CT delivers relatively large doses of ionizing radiation; therefore, MRI is the "gold standard" for measuring muscle size, as it provides excellent osseous and soft-tissue detail without the negative effects of radiation. (22-24) Unfortunately, MRI is expensive, contraindicated in people with pacemakers and metal implants, and not a tool that can be readily used in a clinical setting. Ultrasound imaging (USI) is non-ionizing, affordable, portable, and an accessible alternative for measurements of muscle morphology, although it is operator dependent. (22,25,26) This modality can perform serial measures of muscle size in a clinical or research setting, (27,28) and systematic reviews have concluded that it is a valid and reliable tool for accurately measuring skeletal muscle size in healthy individuals. (29-31) USI measurements of the size of anterior hip muscles (32-34) and the adductor group (35) have been found to be valid and reliable. To our knowledge, the use of USI to measure the size of QF has not been reported in the literature.
[FIGURE 2 OPMITTED]
The primary aim of this study was to establish the criterion validity of USI against the "gold standard," MRI, for measuring QF muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), and the secondary aim was to investigate the intra-rater reliability of USI.
Eleven current or retired professional ballet dancers (six women, five men; mean age: 30.27 [+ or -] 12.15 years) volunteered for USI of their QF muscle within 1 week of an MRI scan. All participants were employed in a national professional ballet company as dancers or ballet staff. They were all enrolled in a larger MRI study investigating hip joint pathology in dancers. All were actively teaching or participating in ballet classes and rehearsals. Each participant's height, weight, BMI, age, and current and past history of hip pain were recorded (Table 1). They provided written informed consent, and ethics approval was granted by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee.
Volunteers were excluded if there were any contraindications to MRI or USI, such as pacemaker, metal implant, possible pregnancy, or claustrophobia. Other exclusion criteria were a history of Perthes disease, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, hip trauma or serious injury, hip surgery, hip tumor, hip fracture, known inflammatory joint disease, systemic, metabolic, or neurological disorders, and pain that could preclude lying comfortably in the required position for the MRI or USI.
Figure 3 Formula for calculating the volume of quadratus femoris (Ai, area of the muscle in the ith slice; Di-1,i, distance between the ith and (i - 1)th slices; N, number of slices). Volume = [N.summation over (i=2)] [(Ai) + (Ai - 1)/2] x Di - 1, i
Participants were scanned while supine, with padding used to maintain neutral spine and hip alignment. All studies were performed with a 3Tesla Siemens Trio scanner (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) using an 8-channel phased array body coil. Left and right hips were imaged separately. The following sequence was used for QF CSA measurement: true axial proton density weighted (PD) fast pin-echo (fs) sequences (repetition time = 3590 ms, echo time = 30 ms, slice thickness = 4 mm/slice gap = 1.5 mm, field of view = 200 mm, resolution = 288 x 384, number of averages = 1). Transverse images of the whole QF were acquired from the greatest circumference of the head of femur to the inferior edge of the lesser QF trochanter. Measurement of left and right QF muscle CSA was performed on electronic imaging software, InteleViewer (Intelerad, Montreal, Canada), by manually tracing around the muscle borders of the four most cephalad slices that were inferior to obturator internus and inferior gemellus. These four slices were found to have the most distinct muscle borders and were clear despite variations in anatomy and size of the participants. The most proximal MRI slice was used for comparison with the USI image (Fig. 2).
Partial volume was calculated by interpolating the four QF CSAs in order to determine whether the most proximal image CSA was representative of the whole muscle. Partial volume of QF was calculated using the "Cavalieri Principle" (36) (Fig. 3).
Participants were positioned prone with the hip joint in the same position as in the MRI. Adhesive tape was applied to the thigh along the shaft of the femur in standing and then aligned with the horizontal plane to ensure there was no hip flexion once positioned in prone. A portable brightness mode ultrasound system (VIAMO, Toshiba SSA 640A) fitted with either a 5-MHz or 4-MHz curvilinear transducer was used to image QF of each participant. (37) The transducer was placed along a transverse line drawn 6 cm inferior to the superior edge of the greater trochanter (Fig. 4).
The transducer placement was adjusted until the most proximal image of QF with distinct borders was located inferior to obturator internus and inferior gemellus. The medium-sized curvilinear probe was required to ensure that bony landmarks, ischial tuberosity and the posterior border of the greater trochanter of the femur, were well defined in the image. Care was taken to align the plane of images taken with USI as closely as possible to the axial plane of the MRI images. Three still images were captured with the participant at rest on both left and right sides. Six participants repeated the ultrasound procedure on both left and right hips after a mean of 6 days (SD [+ or -] 6.72) for intra-rater reliability testing.
A musculoskeletal radiologist with 22 years of MRI experience oversaw the MRI procedure. The chief investigator, a physiotherapist with 8 years of experience in the use of USI, performed all the USI procedures and MRI and USI measurements. The stored ultrasound images were coded differently from the stored MRI images to ensure that the assessor was blinded to the identity and results of all imaging measurements. The CSA of QF was calculated by manually tracing inside the fascial border of the QF (Fig. 5). The mean CSA of three images at rest was used for analysis. (30)
All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS, Version 21 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The mean CSA and SD of QF measured with USI and MRI were recorded. There was no significant difference in the USI CSA between left and right sides (t = 0.77, p = 0.45), so the data were pooled and Pearson's correlation coefficient and the Student's paired t-test were used to examine the correlation and difference between the CSA of QF with USI and MRI. To evaluate the absolute agreement and consistency of measures from both modes of imaging, ICCs of reliability and two-sided 95% CIs were calculated using a two-way mix for absolute agreement and consistency. A Bland-Altman plot (38) was used to demonstrate the mean difference of the USI and MRI estimates of CSA, whereby lower values represent greater agreement between imaging modalities. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationship between the most proximal MRI image and a partial volume. ICC (2-way mixed, absolute agreement) was used to calculate the intra-rater reliability of using USI to measure the CSA of QF. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and the minimal detectable change at a 95% CI (MDC95), which is the measurement of change necessary to exceed the measurement error of two repeated measures, (39) was calculated using the formulas MDC95 = SEM x 1.96 x [square root of ((2.))] (SD = pooled SD of test and re-test; SEM = SD [square root of ((1-ICC))). The significance level was set at p < 0.05.
Of the three participants who reported hip pain, two were experiencing current anterior pain, and three had a past history of anterior hip pain (Table 1). One participant had an absent QF on the left side on both MRI and USI, and the MRI demonstrated that the obturator externus had aberrant anatomy and had filled the QF space. The data for this hip were excluded from analysis. In two women, it was necessary to use a 4 MHz transducer to increase the depth of penetration in an effort to optimize the image.
CSA with MRI (4.8 [cm.sup.2] [+ or -] 1.54 [cm.sup.2]) was significantly greater than USI CSA (4.29 [cm.sup.2] [+ or -] 1.56 [cm.sup.2]: t = 5.82; p < 0.001). However, Pearson's correlation coefficient showed that the measurements were highly correlated (r = 0.96, p < 0.001). ICC (2-way mixed, absolute agreement) also showed high correlation, demonstrating agreement of measures (ICC = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.97), and ICC (2-way mixed, consistency) showed high correlation, establishing consistency of measures (ICC = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.90 to 0.98). The Bland-Altman plot (Fig. 6) indicated that the mean difference between the USI and MRI estimates of muscle CSA was 0.41 [cm.sup.2], which represents 9% of the mean CSA of QF. The limits of agreement were [+ or -] 0.51 [cm.sup.2] (1.41 to -0.59 [cm.sup.2]) for the CSA estimates.
The CSA of the most proximal image on MRI was highly correlated with the partial volume of QF (r = 0.93, p < 0.001). Intra-rater reliability of measuring QF with USI was excellent between two trials (ICC = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96 to 0.99). The SEM was 0.14 [cm.sup.2], and the MDC95 was 0.38 [cm.sup.2], which represents 3.5 % and 9.5% of the mean QF muscle CSA, respectively. When the post hoc power was calculated, the effect size was 1.1, and the power was 0.93.
This study demonstrated that USI can be an efficient and clinically useful tool in measuring the size of QF. The CSA measurements were highly correlated, and the intra-rater reliability of measuring QF with USI was excellent between two trials. The most proximal CSA on MRI was highly correlated with the partial volume of QF and can be used to estimate the volume of this muscle. Therefore, the use of USI to measure changes in axial plane CSA of the QF is valid and reliable.
In the present study, the CSA of QF with USI was significantly smaller than with MRI. Earlier studies have also reported that USI underestimated muscle size when compared with MRI. (26,27,40-45) Our results are comparable to those of Ahtiainen and coworkers, (27) who reported a mean difference of 10% between modalities for measuring the CSA of vastus lateralis. Manual tracing of QF on images is a potential source of error, and may account for the under-estimation of muscle size with USI when compared to MRI. This study traced the inner fascial border around QF. (46) The peri-muscular connective tissue (PMCT) bordering muscle appears thicker and easier to visualize with USI than with MRI. (42,47,48) As these tissues were excluded in the region of interest on the USI, it is feasible that more tissue was included in the MRI CSA, resulting in larger MRI CSA measures. (26,47,48) Previous studies have used USI to quantitatively evaluate PMCT of the abdominal wall (46) and lumbar multifidus. (49) They revealed a significant increase in the thickness of PMCT in participants with chronic lumbopelvic (46) or lower back pain (49) after adjusting for BMI. These findings highlight the importance of differentiating between muscle and PMCT when measuring muscle size. Furthermore, future investigation that measures the thickness of PMCT around QF with USI could determine if thicker PMCT is associated with hip pain or dysfunction.
Another possible explanation for the smaller CSA of QF when measured with USI is the orientation of the transducer during image capture. Previous studies have suggested that a change in transducer orientation of 20[degrees] can increase the muscle CSA by 6.5%, and the error can grow with increasing depth of the muscle. (23,50) In our study, the MRI image was captured in an axial plane in supine, while the USI was performed in prone. A strict protocol was implemented for both MRI and USI to ensure the plane was matched between modalities. It is possible, however, that the USI transducer orientation did not mimic the plane of the MRI exactly in a cephalad-caudad direction. As the MRI CSAs were larger than the USI CSAs, it may have been the MRI that did not capture images in a true axial plane.
Excessive pressure of the transducer causing reduction in the USI measures has been noted in previous research, with the effect on thickness being greater than CSA. (50) In our study, a significant amount of pressure was required, due to the depth of penetration needed to image QF with adequate resolution. The QF sits deep to gluteus maximus in a gutter between the bony attachments and is somewhat protected from superficial compression. The gluteus maximus was compressed by transducer pressure in USI and by lying during MRI. Future research could image the QF in hip flexion, as less pressure would be required due to a reduced thickness of gluteus maximus underneath the transducer. It is recommended that CSA rather than linear measurements of QF be calculated to reduce the effect of transducer pressure on reliability.
Despite the systematic difference in size between USI and MRI estimates of CSA, Pearson's correlation coefficient demonstrated that measures were highly correlated. These results are corroborated by previous studies measuring CSA of skeletal muscle, with values ranging from r = 0.78 to 0.96. (51,52) A high consistency and agreement between measures was demonstrated in the present study. However, the wide CI for absolute agreement highlights the systematic bias in the measures. Previous studies that have compared CSA measures between USI and MRI have reported ICCs ranging from 0.81 to 0.999. (27,32,53) Mendis and colleagues (32) was the only study to report CIs, and these ranged from 0.39 to 0.95 to 0.61 to 0.97 for measuring the CSA of anterior hip muscles. The wide CIs reported in the Mendis study and our study indicate variability of measures but could have been narrowed with a larger sample size.
Intra-rater reliability of measuring the size of QF with USI was excellent. The SEM of 0.14 [cm.sup.2] (3.5%) in our study was low, and the minimal detectable change (95% CI) was 0.38 [cm.sup.2] (9.5%). Consequently, changes in size would have to be greater than 9.5% of the QF muscle CSA to be sure that real change had occurred. Comparable reliability has been reported for measuring CSA of other hip muscles. (32) However, the previous studies reported higher SEM values (0.2 to 1.1 [cm.sup.2]). The lower SEM in the present study could have been due to using the mean of three measures. (30) Research testing inter-rater reliability of USI of QF is also essential.
USI measures from a single site have been used to predict muscle volume. (54) To ensure repeatability, we chose to use the most cephalad CSA of QF that could be imaged with USI. The axial image of QF on MRI that matched this ultrasound image was found to be highly correlated with the partial volume. Therefore, the use of this single CSA as a representation of QF size is valid. Further research that investigates the reliability of measuring a single CSA of QF with USI in clinical populations is warranted.
Muscle strength is related to the muscle's CSA and can change over time with either disuse or strengthening. (25,47) The CSA of QF measured with MRI has been shown to be responsive to change in size. Quadratus femoris atrophied significantly faster than the other external rotator muscles (p [less than or equal to] 0.0001 for all) and demonstrated the greatest loss of muscle volume throughout 60 days of bed rest. (20) Furthermore, as people age beyond 50, QF atrophy and fatty infiltration has been shown to increase to a greater degree compared with other hip muscles. (5) Fatty infiltration of QF has also been associated with chronic injury. (10,13) Recent studies have identified a type of ischiofemoral impingement where QF is reportedly compressed between the ischium-hamstring tendon origin and the lesser trochanter. (6-15) In an MRI study investigating ischiofemoral impingement, QF muscle volume was significantly lower, and QF muscle fatty infiltration was significantly higher in people with QF oedema and hip pain (p < 0.001). (10) Quadratus femoris appears to have a unique response to injury, aging, and unloading, and may not recover automatically following injury resolution. Therefore, further research is required to determine whether the single axial CSA on MRI and the USI CSA of QF is sensitive to small changes in size with atrophy or hypertrophy.
The main limitation of using USI to measure muscle size is that it cannot accurately measure fat or connective tissue infiltrate; therefore, the size of the muscle may be over-estimated. (22,48) As a result of these intramuscular changes, images of pathological or deconditioned muscle can be more difficult to measure accurately due to hyperechogenicity of the muscle, poorer bone edge definition, and loss of clarity of the fascial borders. (47,48,55) The participants investigated in the present study were professional or retired ballet dancers who were lean, and the echogenic fascial borders were easily identified with USI. (42,47,48) Therefore, the results of this study may not be generalized to populations with pain, pathology, or the elderly without further research.
It has been suggested that ballet is associated with hip OA due to the repetitive, extreme range of hip movement that is required to succeed at an elite level. (56) Anecdotes suggest that ballet dancers are at a high risk of developing hip joint degenerative changes, such as labral injury and ligamentum teres lesions. (57,58) Studies investigating hip OA in dancers that have been based on questionnaires and radiography have been inconclusive. (59-61) However, the findings of an MRI study have supported the theory that elite ballet dancers are at risk of degenerative hip joint pathology. (62) Hip muscle atrophy has been associated with hip OA in MRI and CT studies. (63-66) One MRI study has demonstrated significant atrophy of piriformis in participants with severe hip OA (p < 0.05). (64) However, research investigating the association of pain or intra-articular hip joint pathology with the size of QF has not been done. Ultrasound imaging could be utilized to investigate an association of QF atrophy with hip joint pain and pathology in a dance population.
Conservative methods of managing hip pain could be improved if the stabilizing muscles, such as QF, could be accurately measured and targeted with specific strengthening exercises. USI is potentially useful in performing serial measures of muscle size in a clinical or research setting. (27,28) Therefore, USI could be used in future research to investigate the outcomes of a specific therapeutic exercise program to strengthen QF.
This study has demonstrated that USI can be a reliable and clinically useful tool for measuring the size of QF in a non-invasive manner. Even though USI produced consistently smaller values than MRI, these differences were equivalent to 9% of QF CSA, and the values were highly correlated with excellent repeatability. Therefore, the use of USI to measure changes in the axial plane CSA of this muscle in research and clinical settings is valid. The findings of USI studies could improve our understanding of the function of QF. USI could be used to investigate an association of QF size with hip pain and injury and to assess the outcomes of specific therapeutic exercise programs.
The authors sincerely thank the dancers and staff of The Australian Ballet who participated in the study. We also thank Toshiba for supplying the ultrasound system with technical support and Peter Smith and the staff of MIA East Melbourne Radiology for assistance with the MRI procedure. We thank Sophie Emery, Jamie Gaida, and Peta Stellar for assistance in manuscript preparation. Funding from ANZ Trustees is gratefully acknowledged. Professor Cook was supported by the Australian Centre for Research into Sports Injury and its Prevention, which is one of the International Research Centres for Prevention of Injury and Protection of Athlete Health supported by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
Caption: Figure 1 Quadratus femoris originates from the external border of the ischial tuberosity, inserts into the linea quadrata and is innervated by L5 and S1 nerves (4) (P, piriformis; SG, superior gemellus; OI, obturator internus; IG, inferior gemellus; OE, obturator externus; QF, quadratus femoris). View this figure in color at http://dx.doi.org/10.12678/1089-313X.19.L3.
Caption: Figure 2 Diagram indicating the levels of the four transverse images that were used to measure QF CSA on MRI. The thick line represents the most proximal of these images on MRI and was used for comparison with the single USI image (OI, obturator internus; IG, inferior gemellus; QF, quadratus femoris). View this figure in color at http://dx.doi.org/10.12678/1089-313X.19.1.3.
Caption: Figure 4 A, USI set-up for measurement of quadratus femoris; B, Black line represents transverse line drawn 6 cm distal to superior edge of greater trochanter.
Caption: Figure 5 Axial ultrasound image of the left hip showing the borders of the quadratus femoris muscle.
Caption: Figure 6 Bland-Altman plot demonstrates the mean difference between the MRI and USI estimates of QF axial CSA (thick line) and the limits of agreement (thin lines).
(1.) Gray H. Anatomy of the Human Body. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1918; Available at www.bartleby. com/107/128.html. Accessed March, 28, 2014.
(2.) Dostal WF, Soderberg GL, Andrews JG. Actions of hip muscles. Phys Ther. 1986 Mar;66(3):351-9.
(3.) Delp SL, Hess WE, Hungerford DS, Jones LC. Variation of rotation moment arms with hip flexion. J Biomech. 1999 May;32(5):493-501.
(4.) Neumann DA. Kinesiology of the hip: a focus on muscular actions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Feb;40(2):82-94.
(5.) Daguet E, Jolivet E, Bousson V, et al. Fat content of hip muscles: an anteroposterior gradient. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Oct 19;93(20):1897-905.
(6.) Lopez-Sanchez MC, Armesto Perez V, Montero Furelos LA, et al. Ischiofemoral impingement: hip pain of infrequent cause. Reumatol Clin. 2013 May-Jun;9(3):186-7.
(7.) Lee S, Kim I, Lee SM, Lee J. Ischiofemoral impingement syndrome. Ann Rehabil Med. 2013 Feb;37(1):143-6.
(8.) Ali AM, Teh J, Whitwell D, Ostlere S. Ischiofemoral impingement: a retrospective analysis of cases in a specialist orthopaedic centre over a four-year period. Hip Int. 2013 May-Jun;23(3):263-8.
(9.) Ali AM, Whitwell D, Ostlere SJ. Case report: imaging and surgical treatment of a snapping hip due to ischiofemoral impingement. Skeletal Radiol. 2011 May;40(5):653-6.
(10.) Tosun O, Algin O, Yalcin N, et al. Ischiofemoral impingement: evaluation with new MRI parameters and assessment of their reliability. Skeletal Radiol. 2012 May;41(5):575-87.
(11.) Tosun O, Cay N, Bozkurt M, Arslan H. Ischiofemoral impingement in an 11-year-old girl. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2012 Nov-Dec;18(6):571-3.
(12.) Stafford G, Villar R. Ischiofemoral impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Oct;93(10):1300-2.
(13.) Torriani M, Souto SCL, Thomas BJ, et al. Ischiofemoral impingement syndrome: an entity with hip pain and abnormalities of the quadratus femoris muscle. AJR Am J Roent genol. 2009 Jul;193(1):186-90.
(14.) Kassarjian A. Signal abnormalities in the quadratus femoris muscle: tear or impingement? AJR Am J Roentgen ol. 2008 Jun;190(6):W379; author reply W380-1.
(15.) Patti JW, Ouellette H, Bredella MA, Torriani M. Impingement of lesser trochanter on ischium as a potential cause for hip pain. Skeletal Radiol. 2008 Oct;37(10):939-41.
(16.) Peltola K, Heinonen OJ, Orava S, Mattila K. Quadratus femoris muscle tear: an uncommon cause for radiating gluteal pain. Clin J Sport Med. 1999 Oct;9(4):228-30.
(17.) Klinkert P, Porte R, De Rooij T, De Vries A. Quadratus femoris tendinitis as a cause of groin pain. Br J Sports Med. 1997 Dec;31(4):348-9.
(18.) Willick SE, Lazarus M, Press JM. Quadratus femoris strain. Clin J Sport Med. 2002 Mar;12(2):130-1.
(19.) Askling CM, Tengvar M, Saartok T, Thorstensson A. Acute first-time hamstring strains during slow-speed stretching clinical, magnetic resonance imaging, and recovery characteristics. Am J Sports Med. 2007 Oct;35(10):1716-24.
(20.) Miokovic T, Armbrecht G, Felsenberg D, Belavy DL. Differential atrophy of the postero-lateral hip musculature during prolonged bedrest and the influence of exercise countermeasures. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2011 Apr;110(4):926-34.
(21.) Mitsiopoulos N, Baumgartner R, Heymsfield S, et al. Cadaver validation of skeletal muscle measurement by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1998 Jul;85(1):115-22.
(22.) Hides JA, Richardson CA, Jull GA. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography of the lumbar multifidus muscle. Comparison of two different modalities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Jan 1;20(1):54-8.
(23.) Esformes JI, Narici MV, Maganaris CN. Measurement of human muscle volume using ultrasonography. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 May;87(1):90-2.
(24.) Engstrom CM, Loeb GE, Reid JG, et al. Morphometry of the human thigh muscles. A comparison between anatomical sections and computer tomographic and magnetic resonance images. J Anat. 1991 Jun;176:139-56.
(25.) Stokes M, Young A. Measurement of quadriceps cross--sectional area by ultrasonography: a description of the technique and its applications in physiotherapy. Physiother Theory Pract. 1986;2(1):31-6.
(26.) Raadsheer MC, Van Eijden TM, Van Spronsen PH, et al. A comparison of human masseter muscle thickness measured by ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Oral Biol. 1994 Dec;39(12):1079-84.
(27.) Ahtiainen JP, Hoffren M, Hulmi JJ, et al. Panoramic ultrasonography is a valid method to measure changes in skeletal muscle cross-sectional area. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010 Jan;108(2):273-9.
(28.) Menon MK, Houchen L, Harrison S, et al. Ultrasound assessment of lower limb muscle mass in response to resistance training in COPD. Respir Res. 2012 Dec 28;13:119.
(29.) Pretorius A, Keating J. Validity of real time ultrasound for measuring skeletal muscle size. Phys Ther Rev. 2008;13(6):415-26.
(30.) Koppenhaver SL, Hebert JJ, Parent EC, Fritz JM. Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging is a valid measure of trunk muscle size and activation during most isometric sub-maximal contractions: a systematic review. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55(3):153-69.
(31.) English C, Fisher L, Thoirs K. Reliability of real-time ultrasound for measuring skeletal muscle size in human limbs in vivo: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2012 Oct;26(10):934-44.
(32.) Mendis MD, Wilson SJ, Stanton W, Hides JA. Validity of real-time ultrasound imaging to measure anterior hip muscle size: a comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Sep;40(9):577-81.
(33.) Takai Y, Katsumata Y, Kawakami Y, et al. Ultrasound method for estimating the cross-sectional area of the psoas major muscle. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Oct;43(10):2000-4.
(34.) Bemben MG. Use of diagnostic ultrasound for assessing muscle size. J Strength Cond Res. 2002 Feb;16(1):103-8.
(35.) Ogawa M, Mitsukawa N, Bemben MG, Abe T. Ultrasound assessment of adductor muscle size using muscle thickness of the thigh. J Sport Reha bil. 2012 Aug;21(3):244-8.
(36.) Tosun O, Algin O, Yalcin N, et al. Ischiofemoral impingement: evaluation with new MRI parameters and assessment of their reliability. Skeletal Radiol. 2012 May;41(5):575-87.
(37.) Worsley PR, Smith N, Warner MB, Stokes M. Ultrasound transducer shape has no effect on measurements of lumbar multifidus muscle size. Man Ther. 2012 Apr;17(2):187-91.
(38.) Martin Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10.
(39.) Wagner JM, Rhodes JA, Patten C. Reproducibility and minimal detectable change of three-dimensional kinematic analysis of reaching tasks in people with hemiparesis after stroke. Phys Ther. 2008 May;88(5):652-63.
(40.) Cagnie B, Derese E, Vandamme L, et al. Validity and reliability of ultrasonography for the longus colli in asymptomatic subjects. Man Ther. 2009 Aug;14(4):421-6.
(41.) Juul-Kristensen B, Bojsen-Moller F, Holst E, Ekdahl C. Comparison of muscle sizes and moment arms of two rotator cuff muscles measured by ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Ultrasound. 2000 Jun;11(3):161-73.
(42.) O'Sullivan C, Meaney J, Boyle G, et al. The validity of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging for measurement of trapezius muscle thickness. Man Ther. 2009 Oct;14(5):572-8.
(43.) MacGillivray TJ, Ross E, Simpson HAHRW, Greig CA. 3D freehand ultrasound for in vivo determination of human skeletal muscle volume. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009 Jun;35(6):928-35.
(44.) Fukumoto K, Muraki S, Tsubai M, Fukuda O. Calibration of cross-sectional images measured by an ultrasound-based muscle evaluation system. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009;2009:432-5.
(45.) Scott JM, Martin DS, Ploutz-Snyder R, et al. Reliability and validity of panoramic ultrasound for muscle quantification. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2012 Sep;38(9):1656-61.
(46.) Whittaker JL, Warner MB, Stokes M. Comparison of the sonographic features of the abdominal wall muscles and connective tissues in individuals with and without lumbopelvic pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013 Jan;43(1):11-9.
(47.) Sipila S, Suominen H. Ultrasound imaging of the quadriceps muscle in elderly athletes and untrained men. Muscle Nerve. 1991 Jun;14(6):527-33.
(48.) Sipila S, Suominen H. Muscle ultrasonography and computed tomography in elderly trained and untrained women. Muscle Nerve. 1993 Mar;16(3):294-300.
(49.) Langevin HM, Stevens-Tuttle D, Fox JR, et al. Ultrasound evidence of altered lumbar connective tissue structure in human subjects with chronic low back pain. BMC musculo-skeletal disorders. 2009 Dec 3;10:151.
(50.) Dupont AC, Sauerbrei EE, Fenton PV, et al. Real-time sonography to estimate muscle thickness: comparison with MRI and CT. J Clin Ultrasound. 2001 May;29(4):230-6.
(51.) Arbeille P, Kerbeci P, Capri A, et al. Quantification of muscle volume by echography: comparison with MRI data on subjects in long-term bed rest. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009 Jul;35(7):1092-7.
(52.) Miyatani M, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Validity of bioelectrical impedance and ultrasonographic methods for estimating the muscle volume of the upper arm. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000 Aug;82(5-6):391-6.
(53.) Reeves ND, Maganaris CN, Narici MV. Ultrasonographic assessment of human skeletal muscle size. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004 Jan;91(1):116-18.
(54.) Miyatani M, Kanehisa H, Kuno S, et al. Validity of ultrasonograph muscle thickness measurements for estimat ing muscle volume of knee extensors in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Jan;86(3):203-8.
(55.) Walker FO. Imaging nerve and muscle with ultrasound. Suppl Clin Neurophysiol. 2004;57:243-54.
(56.) Charbonnier C, Kolo FC, Duthon VB, et al. Assessment of congruence and impingement of the hip joint in professional ballet dancers a motion capture study. Am J Sports Med. 2011 Mar;39(3):557-66.
(57.) McCarthy J, Barsoum W, Puri L, et al. The role of hip arthroscopy in the elite athlete. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Jan;(406):71-4.
(58.) Cerezal L, Kassarjian A, Canga A, et al. Anatomy, biomechanics, imaging, and management of ligamentum teres injuries. Radiographics. 2010 Oct;30(6):1637-51.
(59.) Andersson S, Nilsson B, Hessel T, et al. Degenerative joint disease in ballet dancers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Jan;(238):233-6.
(60.) Ronkko R, Heliovaara M, Malmivaara A, et al. Musculoskeletal pain, disability and quality of life among retired dancers. J Dance Med Sci. 2007;11(4):105-9.
(61.) van Dijk CN, Lim LSL, Poortman A, et al. Degenerative joint disease in female ballet dancers. Am J Sports Med. 1995 May-Jun;23(3):295-300.
(62.) Duthon VB, Charbonnier C, Kolo FC, et al. Correlation of clinical and magnetic resonance imaging findings in hips of elite female ballet dancers. Arthroscopy. 2013 Mar;29(3):411-19.
(63.) Arokoski MH, Arokoski JPA, Haara M, et al. Hip muscle strength and muscle cross sectional area in men with and without hip osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2002 Oct;29(10):2185-95.
(64.) Grimaldi A, Richardson C, Stanton W, et al. The association between degenerative hip joint pathology and size of the gluteus medius, gluteus minimus and piriformis muscles. Man The. 2009 Dec;14(6):605-10.
(65.) Grimaldi A, Richardson C, Durbridge G, et al. The association between degenerative hip joint pathology and size of the gluteus maximus and tensor fascia lata muscles. Man Ther. 2009 Dec;14(6):611-7.
(66.) Rasch A, Bystrom AH, Dalen N, Berg HE. Reduced muscle radiological density, cross-sectional area, and strength of major hip and knee muscles in 22 patients with hip osteoarthritis. Acta Orthop. 2007 Aug;78(4):505-10.
Susan J. Mayes, P.T., Paula H. Baird-Colt, A.P.M.A., and Jill L. Cook, P.T., Ph.D.
Susan J. Mayes, P.T., The Australian Ballet, Southbank, and School of Primary Health Care, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia. Paula H. Baird-Colt, A.P.M.A., The Australian Ballet, Southbank, Victoria, Australia. Jill L. Cook, P.T., Ph.D., School of Primary Health Care, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.
Correspondence: Susan Mayes, P.T., The Australian Ballet, 2 Kavanagh Street, Southbank, Victoria 3006, Australia; firstname.lastname@example.org.
Table 1 Demographic Data of Participants Male (N = 5) Female (N = 6) Height (m) 1.82 [+ or -] 0.09 1.64 [+ or -] 0.03 Weight (kg) 75.4 [+ or -] 6.77 51 [+ or -] 3.58 Body Mass Index (BMI) 22.75 [+ or -] 2.64 18.84 [+ or -] 1.03 Age (years) 29.4 [+ or -] 12.14 31 [+ or -] 13.27 Current Hip Pain (N) 1 1 Past History of 2 1 Hip Pain (N)
Please note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright restrictions.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Mayes, Susan J.; Baird-Colt, Paula H.; Cook, Jill L.|
|Publication:||Journal of Dance Medicine & Science|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2015|
|Previous Article:||Life in Motion: My Story Of Adversity and Grace.|
|Next Article:||Motor control of rhythmic dance from a dynamical systems perspective: a review.|