Purpose: Measurement of muscle mass is paramount in the screening and diagnosis of sarcopenia. Besides muscle quantity however, also quality assessment is important. Ultrasonography (US) has the advantage over dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and bio-impedance analysis (BIA) to give both quantitative and qualitative information on muscle. However, before its use in clinical practice, several methodological aspects still need to be addressed. Both standardization in measurement techniques and the availability of reference values are currently lacking. This review aims to provide an evidence-based standardization of assessing appendicular muscle with the use of US. Methods: A systematic review was performed for ultrasonography to assess muscle in older people. Pubmed, SCOPUS and Web of Sciences were searched. All articles regarding the use of US in assessing appendicular muscle were used. Description of US-specific parameters and localization of the measurement were retrieved. Results: Through this process, five items of muscle assessment were identified in the evaluated articles: thickness, cross-sectional area, echogenicity, fascicle length and pennation angle. Different techniques for measurement and location of measurement used were noted, as also the different muscles in which this was evaluated. Then, a translation for a clinical setting in a standardized way was proposed. Conclusions: The results of this review provide thus an evidence base for an ultrasound protocol in the assessment of skeletal muscle. This standardization of measurements is the first step in creating conditions to further test the applicability of US for use on a large scale as a routine assessment and follow-up tool for appendicular muscle.
DOCUMENT
PURPOSE: In 2018, the SARCUS working group published a first article on the standardization of the use of ultrasound to assess muscle. Recommendations were made for patient positioning, system settings and components to be measured. Also, shortcomings in knowledge were mentioned. An important issue that still required standardization was the definition of anatomical landmarks for many muscles.METHODS: A systematic search was performed in Medline, SCOPUS and Web of Sciences looking for all articles describing the use of ultrasound in the assessment of muscle not described in the first recommendations, published from 01/01/2018 until 31/01/2020. All relevant terms used for older people, ultrasound and muscles were used.RESULTS: For 39 muscles, different approaches for ultrasound assessment were found that likely impact the values measured. Standardized anatomical landmarks and measuring points were proposed for all muscles/muscle groups. Besides the five already known muscle parameters (muscle thickness, cross-section area, pennation angle, fascicle length and echo-intensity), four new parameters are discussed (muscle volume, stiffness, contraction potential and microcirculation). The former SARCUS article recommendations are updated with this new information that includes new muscle groups.CONCLUSIONS: The emerging field of ultrasound assessment of muscle mass only highlights the need for a standardization of measurement technique. In this article, guidelines are updated and broadened to provide standardization instructions for a large number of muscles.
DOCUMENT
Background and Purpose: Decreased muscle mass and muscle strength are independent predictors of poor postoperative recov- ery in patients with esophageal cancer. If there is an association between muscle mass and muscle strength, physiotherapists are able to measure muscle strength as an early predictor for poor postoperative recovery due to decreased muscle mass. Therefore, in this cross-sectional study, we aimed to investigate the association between muscle mass and muscle strength in predominantly older patients with esophageal cancer awaiting esophagectomy prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Methods: In patients with resectable esophageal cancer eligible for surgery between March 2012 and October 2015, we used computed tomographic scans to assess muscle mass and compared them with muscle strength measures (hand- grip strength, inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength, 30 seconds chair stands test). We calculated Pearson correla- tion coefficients and determined associations by multivariate linear regression analysis. Results and Discussion: A tertiary referral center referred 125 individuals to physiotherapy who were eligible for the study; we finally included 93 individuals for statistical analysis. Mul- tiple backward regression analysis showed that gender (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.05-33.82), weight (95% CI, 0.39- 1.02), age (95% CI, −0.91 to −0.04), left handgrip strength (95% CI, 0.14-1.44), and inspiratory muscle strength (95% CI, 0.08-0.38) were all independently associated with muscle surface area at L3. All these variables together explained 66% of the variability (R2) in muscle surface area at L3 (P < .01). Conclusions: This study shows an independent association between aspects of muscle strength and muscle mass in patients with esophageal cancer awaiting surgery, and phys- iotherapists could use the results to predict muscle mass on the basis of muscle strength in preoperative patients with esophageal cancer.
DOCUMENT
