Physical Therapy Rehabilitation Science

korean Academy of Physical Therapy Rehabilitation Science (물리치료재활과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Reliability of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging for measuring the gluteus maximus muscle at rest and during contraction

  • Jeong, Ju-Ri (Musculoskeletal Center, Seoul R&D Campus Medical Clinic, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Su-Jin (Musculoskeletal Center, Seoul R&D Campus Medical Clinic, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Wan-Hee (Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health and Welfare, Sahmyook University)
  • Received : 2017.03.01
  • Accepted : 2017.03.16
  • Published : 2017.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) for measurement of muscle thickness with changes in angles of the gluteus maximus (GM) at rest and during contraction. Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Twenty-two healthy men volunteered for this study. GM muscle images were obtained in the resting position and during prone hip extension with knee flexion at hip abduction angles of $0^{\circ}$ and $30^{\circ}$, respectively. Two examiners randomly measured the thickness of the GM twice in three different positions. The first position was a comfortable prone position. The second position was prone hip extension with knee flexion (PHEKF) to $90^{\circ}$. The third position was achieved by hanging a 1-kg weight on the ankle of the lifted leg during PHEKF with the angle of the lifted leg the same as the second position. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error measurements, and minimal detectable changes were used to estimate reliability. Results: The intra-rater reliability ICCs (95% confidence interval) of the GM were >0.870, indicating good reliability. Inter-rater reliability ICCs ranged from 0.668 to 0.913. The reliability of measurements of muscle thickness at each position was similar to the reliability of the angle change. Differences in muscle thickness and ratios for each position with $0^{\circ}$ and $30^{\circ}$ of hip abduction were not statistically significant. Conclusions: In the present study, the intra-rater reliability of muscle thickness measurements of the GM was good, and the inter-rater reliability was moderate to good. Reliable RUSI measurements of wide and large muscles, such as the GM muscle at rest and during contraction, are feasible. Further investigation is required to establish the reproducibility of the protocols presented in this study.

Keywords

References

  1. Whittaker JL, Teyhen DS, Elliott JM, Cook K, Langevin HM, Dahl HH, et al. Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging: understanding the technology and its applications. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2007;37:434-49. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2007.2350
  2. Ko YJ, Ha HG, Jeong J, Lee WH. Variations in lateral abdominal muscle thickness during abdominal drawing-in maneuver in three positions in a young healthy population. Phys Ther Rehabil Sci 2014;3:101-6. https://doi.org/10.14474/ptrs.2014.3.2.101
  3. Yoo JS, Ha HG, Jeong JR, Ko YJ, Lee W. Physical therapist perception survey for muscle re-education through visual feedback obtained from rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. Phys Ther Rehabil Sci 2016;5:47-52. https://doi.org/10.14474/ptrs.2016.5.1.47
  4. Jeong JR, Han JH, Cho JE, Lee W. Reliability and validity of a personal computer based muscle viewer for measuring upper trapezius and transverses abdominis muscle thickness. Phys Ther Rehabil Sci 2016;5:155-61. https://doi.org/10.14474/ptrs.2016.5.3.155
  5. Kim TH, Hahn J, Jeong JR, Lee C, Kim YJ, Choi SM, et al. Changes of abdominal muscle thickness during stable and unstable surface bridging exercise in young people. Phys Ther Rehabil Sci 2016;5:210-4. https://doi.org/10.14474/ptrs.2016.5.4.210
  6. Whittaker JL, Emery CA. Sonographic measures of the gluteus medius, gluteus minimus, and vastus medialis muscles. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014;44:627-32. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2014.5315
  7. Netter FH. The ciba collection of medical illustrations: vol 8: musculoskeletal system: part I: anatomy, physiology and metabolic disorders. Lincoln: Anybook Ltd; 1987.
  8. Lehman GJ, Lennon D, Tresidder B, Rayfield B, Poschar M. Muscle recruitment patterns during the prone leg extension. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2004;5:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-5-3
  9. Day JM, Uhl T. Thickness of the lower trapezius and serratus anterior using ultrasound imaging during a repeated arm lifting task. Man Ther 2013;18:588-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2013.07.003
  10. Wilson J, Ferris E, Heckler A, Maitland L, Taylor C. A structured review of the role of gluteus maximus in rehabilitation. J Physiother 2005;33:95-100.
  11. Sakamoto ACL, Teixeira-Salmela LF, Rodrigues de Paula F, Guimaraes CQ, Faria CDCM. Gluteus maximus and semitendinosus activation during active prone hip extension exercises. Bras J Phys Ther 2009;13:335-42. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552009005000045
  12. Kang SY, Jeon HS, Kwon O, Cynn HS, Choi B. Activation of the gluteus maximus and hamstring muscles during prone hip extension with knee flexion in three hip abduction positions. Man Ther 2013;18:303-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.11.006
  13. Talbott NR, Witt DW. Ultrasound imaging of the serratus anterior muscle at rest and during contraction. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 2013;33:192-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12012
  14. Dankaerts W, O'Sullivan PB, Burnett AF, Straker LM, Danneels LA. Reliability of EMG measurements for trunk muscles during maximal and sub-maximal voluntary isometric contractions in healthy controls and CLBP patients. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2004;14:333-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2003.07.001
  15. Martinoli C. Musculoskeletal ultrasound: technical guidelines. Insights Imaging 2010;1:99-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-010-0032-9
  16. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Health; 2000.
  17. McAndrew D, Gorelick M, Brown JMM. Muscles within muscles: a mechanomyographic analysis of muscle segment contractle properties within human gluteus maximus. J Musculoskelet Res 2006;10:23-35. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218957706001704
  18. 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;26:934-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215511434994
  19. Koppenhaver SL, Hebert JJ, Fritz JM, Parent EC, Teyhen DS, Magel JS. Reliability of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging of the transversus abdominis and lumbar multifidus muscles. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90:87-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2008.06.022
  20. Gnat R, Saulicz E, Miadowicz B. Reliability of real-time ultrasound measurement of transversus abdominis thickness in healthy trained subjects. Eur Spine J 2012;21:1508-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2184-4
  21. Barker PJ, Hapuarachchi KS, Ross JA, Sambaiew E, Ranger TA, Briggs CA. Anatomy and biomechanics of gluteus maximus and the thoracolumbar fascia at the sacroiliac joint. Clin Anat 2014; 27:234-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22233

Cited by

  1. The role of age in the physiological adaptations and psychological responses in bikini-physique competitor contest preparation: a case series vol.18, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12970-021-00445-1