Physical Therapy Korea (한국전문물리치료학회지)

Korean Research Society of Physical Therapy (한국전문물리치료학회)
권호 표지

Inter-Rater Reliability of Abdominal Muscles Thickness Using Ultrasonography for Different Probe Locations and Thickness Measurement Techniques

  • Lim, One-Bin (Dept. of Physical Therapy, The Graduate School, Yonsei University) ;
  • Hong, Ji-A (Dept. of Physical Therapy, The Graduate School, Yonsei University) ;
  • Yi, Chung-Hwi (Dept. of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University, Dept. of Ergonomic Therapy, The Graduate School of Health and Environment, Yonsei University) ;
  • Cynn, Heon-Seock (Dept. of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University, Dept. of Ergonomic Therapy, The Graduate School of Health and Environment, Yonsei University) ;
  • Jung, Doh-Heon (Dept. of Physical Therapy, The Graduate School, Yonsei University) ;
  • Park, Il-Woo (Dept. of Physical Therapy, The Graduate School, Yonsei University)
  • Received : 2011.09.26
  • Accepted : 2011.10.28
  • Published : 2011.11.19
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Ultrasonography (US) is a recent technique that has proven to be useful for assessing muscle thickness and guiding the rehabilitation decision-making of clinicians and researchers. The purpose of this study was to determine the inter-rater reliability of the US measurement of transversus abdominis (TrA), internal oblique (IO), and external oblique (EO) thicknesses for different probe locations and measurement techniques. Twenty healthy volunteers were recruited in this study. Muscle thicknesses of the transversus TrA, IO, and EO were measured three times in the hook-lying position. The three different probe locations were as follows: 1) Probe location 1 (PL1) was below the rib cage in direct vertical alignment with the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS). 2) Probe location 2 (PL2) was halfway between the ASIS and the ribcage along the mid-axillary line. 3) Probe location 3 (PL3) was halfway between the iliac crest and the inferior angle of the rib cage, with adjustment to ensure the medial edge of the TrA. The two different techniques of thickness measurement from the captured images were as follows: 1) Muscle thickness was measured in the middle of the muscle belly, which was centered within the captured image (technique A; TA). 2) Muscle thickness was measured along a horizontal reference line located 2 cm apart from the medial edge of the TrA in the captured image (technique B; TB). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC [3,k]) was used to calculate the inter-rater reliability of the thickness measurement of TrA, IO and EO using the values from both the first and second examiner. In all three muscles, moderate to excellent reliability was found for all conditions (probe locations and measurement techniques) (ICC=.70~.97). In the PL1-TA condition, inter-rater reliability in the three muscle thicknesses was good to excellent (ICC=.85~.96). The reliability of all measurement conditions was excellent in IO (ICC=.95~.97). Therefore, the findings of this study suggest that TA can be applied to PL1 by clinicians and researchers in order to measure the thickness of abdominal muscles.

Keywords

References

  1. Costa LO, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Reproducibility of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging for the measurement of abdominal muscle activity: A systematic review. Phys Ther. 2009;89(8):756-769. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080331
  2. Critchley DJ, Coutts FJ. Abdominal muscle function in chronic low back pain patients: Measurement with real-time ultrasound scanning. Physiotherapy. 2002;88(6):322-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9406(05)60745-6
  3. Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, Hodges PW. Changes in recruitment of the abdominal muscles in people with low back pain: Ultrasound measurement of muscle activity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(22):2560-2566. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000144410.89182.f9
  4. Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Latimer J, et al. Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial. Pain. 2007;131(1-2):31-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.008
  5. Henry SM, Westervelt KC. The use of real-time ultrasound feedback in teaching abdominal hollowing exercises to healthy subjects. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35(6);338-345. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2005.35.6.338
  6. Hides JA, Jull GA, Richardson CA. Long-term effects of specific stabilizing exercises for first-episode low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(11):E243-E248. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200106010-00004
  7. Hodges PW, Moseley GL. Pain and motor control of the lumbopelvic region: Effect and possible mechanisms. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003;13(4):361-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1050-6411(03)00042-7
  8. Kiesel KB, Uhl TL, Underwood FB, et al. Measurement of lumbar multifidus muscle contraction with rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. Man Ther. 2007;12(2):61-166.
  9. Koppenhaver SL, Hebert JJ, Parent EC, et al. Rehailitative 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):153-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(09)70076-5
  10. Krag MH, Byrne KB, Haugh LD, et al. Objective determination of trunk muscle dimensions using ultrasound. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 1987;6(3):27-30.
  11. McGill SM, Juker D, Axler C. Correcting trunk muscle geometry obtained from MRI and CT scans of supine postures for use in standing postures. J Biomevch. 1996;29(5):643-646. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(95)00119-0
  12. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall Inc., 2009.
  13. Rankin G, Stokes M, Newham DJ. Abdominal muscle size and symmetry in normal subjects. Muscle Nerve. 2006;34(3):320-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.20589
  14. Springer BA, Mielcarek BJ, Nesfield TK, et al. Relationships among lateral abdominal muscles, gender, body mass index, and hand dominance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(5):289-297. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2006.2217
  15. Stokes M, Rankin G, Newham DJ. Ultrasound imaging of lumbar multifidus muscle: Normal reference ranges for measurements and practcal guicance on the technique. Man Ther. 2005;10(2):116-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2004.08.013
  16. Teyhen DS. Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging symposium San Antoni, TX, May 8-10, 2006. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(8):A1-3.
  17. Teyhen DS. Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging: The roadmap ahead. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(8):431-433. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2007.0107
  18. Teyhen DS. Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging for assessment and treatment of musculoskeletal conditions. Man Ther. 2011; 16(1):44-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2010.06.012
  19. Teyhen DS, Gill NW, Whittaker JL, et al. Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging of the abdominal muscles. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(8):450-466. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2007.2558
  20. Teyhen DS, George SZ, Dugan JL, et al. Inter-rater reliability of ultrasound imaging of the trunk musculature among novice raters. J Ultrasound Med. 2011;30(3):347-356. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2011.30.3.347
  21. Whittaker JL, Teyhen DS, Elliott JM, et al. Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging: Understanding the technology and its applications. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(8):434-449. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2007.2350