Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Research

Comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and electrical impedance myography for evaluating lumbar skeletal muscle composition

Authors: Domenico Albano, Salvatore Gitto, Jacopo Vitale, Susan Bernareggi, Alberto Aliprandi, Luca Maria Sconfienza, Carmelo Messina

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

To compare electrical impedance myography (EIM) and MRI in assessing lumbar skeletal muscle composition.

Methods

One hundred forty-one patients (78 females, mean age 57 ± 19 years) were prospectively enrolled and underwent lumbar spine MRI, EIM with Skulpt®, and clinical evaluation including the questionnaire SARC-F. MRIs were reviewed to assess the Goutallier score of paravertebral muscles at L3 level and to calculate the cross sectional area (CSA) of both psoas, quadratus lumborum, erector spinae, and multifidus muscles on a single axial slice at L3 level, in order to calculate the skeletal muscle index (SMI=CSA/height²). We tested the correlation between EIM-derived parameters [body fat percentage (BF%) and muscle quality] and body mass index (BMI), Goutallier score (1–4), SMI, and SARC-F scores (0–10) using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The strength of association was considered large (0.5 to 1.0), medium (0.3 to 0.5), small (0.1 to 0.3).

Results

Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed small (0.26) but significant (p < 0.01) positive correlation between BF% obtained with EIM and Goutallier score. Small negative correlation (− 0.22, p < 0.01) was found between EIM muscle quality and Goutallier Score. Large negative correlation (− 0.56, p < 0.01) was found between SMI and Goutallier Score, while SMI showed small negative correlation with SARC-F (− 0.29, p < 0.01). Medium positive correlation was found between Goutallier Score and SARC-F (0.41, p < 0.01). BMI showed medium positive correlation with SMI (r = 0.369, p < 0.01) and small correlation with EIM muscle quality (r = − 0.291, p < 0.05) and BF% (r = 0.227, p < 0.05). We found a substantial increase of the strength of associations of BF% and muscle quality with Goutallier in the 18–40 years (r = 0.485 and r = − 0.401, respectively) and in the 41–70 years group (r = 0.448 and r = − 0.365, respectively).

Conclusions

Muscle quality and BF% measured by EIM device showed only small strength of correlation with other quantitative parameters for assessing muscle mass and fat infiltration. Interesting results have been found in younger patients, but Skulpt Chisel™ should be applied cautiously to assess lumbar skeletal muscle composition. This point deserves further investigation and other studies are warranted.

Trial registration

The registration number of this study is 107/INT/2019.

Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyère O, Cederholm T, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48:16–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/AGEING/AFY169.CrossRefPubMed

Pamoukdjian F, Bouillet T, Lévy V, Soussan M, Zelek L, Paillaud E. Prevalence and predictive value of pre-therapeutic sarcopenia in cancer patients: a systematic review. Clin Nutr. 2018;37:1101–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLNU.2017.07.010.CrossRefPubMed

Friedman J, Lussiez A, Sullivan J, Wang S, Englesbe M. Implications of sarcopenia in major surgery. Nutr Clin Pract. 2015;30:175–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0884533615569888.CrossRefPubMed

Messina C, Vitale JA, Pedone L, Chianca V, Vicentin I, Albano D, et al. Critical appraisal of papers reporting recommendation on sarcopenia using the AGREE II tool: a EuroAIM initiative. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020;74:1164–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-020-0638-z.CrossRefPubMed

Schiaffino S, Albano D, Cozzi A, Messina C, Arioli R, Bnà C, et al. CT-derived chest muscle metrics for outcome prediction in patients with COVID-19. Radiology. 2021;300:E328–36. https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOL.2021204141.CrossRefPubMed

Tanaka S, Kamiya K, Hamazaki N, Matsuzawa R, Nozaki K, Maekawa E, et al. Utility of SARC-F for assessing physical function in elderly patients with cardiovascular disease. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18:176–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAMDA.2016.10.019.CrossRefPubMed

Woo J, Leung J, Morley JE. Defining sarcopenia in terms of incident adverse outcomes. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16:247–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAMDA.2014.11.013.CrossRefPubMed

Malmstrom TK, Miller DK, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Morley JE. SARC-F: a symptom score to predict persons with sarcopenia at risk for poor functional outcomes. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2016;7:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/JCSM.12048.CrossRefPubMed

Albano D, Messina C, Vitale J, Sconfienza LM. Imaging of sarcopenia: old evidence and new insights. Eur Radiol. 2020;30:2199–208.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Khalil SF, Mohktar MS, Ibrahim F. The theory and fundamentals of bioimpedance analysis in clinical status monitoring and diagnosis of diseases. Sensors (Basel). 2014;14:10895–928. https://doi.org/10.3390/S140610895.CrossRef

11.

Wells AD, Bellovary BN, Houck JM, Ducharme JB, Masoud AA, Gibson AL, et al. New multisite bioelectrical impedance device compared to hydrostatic weighing and skinfold body fat methods. Int J Exerc Sci. 2020;13:1718 /pmc/articles/PMC7745910/. Accessed 26 May 2022.PubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Shen W, Punyanitya M, Wang ZM, Gallagher D, St. Onge MP, Albu J, et al. Total body skeletal muscle and adipose tissue volumes: estimation from a single abdominal cross-sectional image. J Appl Physiol. 2004;97:2333–8. https://doi.org/10.1152/JAPPLPHYSIOL.00744.2004.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Battaglia PJ, Maeda Y, Welk A, Hough B, Kettner N. Reliability of the Goutallier classification in quantifying muscle fatty degeneration in the lumbar multifidus using magnetic resonance imaging. J Manip Physiol Ther. 2014;37:190–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMPT.2013.12.010.CrossRef

15.

Niemeläinen R, Briand MM, Battié MC. Substantial asymmetry in paraspinal muscle cross-sectional area in healthy adults questions its value as a marker of low back pain and pathology. Spine. 1976;2011(36):2152–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0B013E318204B05A.CrossRef

16.

Messina C, Maffi G, Vitale JA, Ulivieri FM, Guglielmi G, Sconfienza LM. Diagnostic imaging of osteoporosis and sarcopenia: a narrative review. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2018;8:86–99. https://doi.org/10.21037/QIMS.2018.01.01.

17.

Wang Y, Freedman L, Buck M, Bohorquez J, Rutkove SB, Keel J. Electrical impedance Myography for assessing Paraspinal muscles of patients with low Back pain. J Electr Bioimpedance. 2019;10:103–9. https://doi.org/10.2478/JOEB-2019-0015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

McLester CN, Dewitt AD, Rooks R, McLester JR. An investigation of the accuracy and reliability of body composition assessed with a handheld electrical impedance myography device. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018;18:763–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1448458.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Berneis K, Keller U. Bioelectrical impedance analysis during acute changes of extracellular osmolality in man. Clin Nutr. 2000;19:361–6. https://doi.org/10.1054/CLNU.2000.0133.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Czeck MA, Raymond-Pope CJ, Prescott E, Bisch KL, Dengel DR. Body fat percent assessment between electrical impedance myography and dual X-ray absorptiometry. Am J Hum Biol. 2020:32. https://doi.org/10.1002/AJHB.23330.

21.

Graybeal AJ, Moore ML, Cruz MR, Tinsley GM. Body composition assessment in male and female bodybuilders: a 4-compartment model comparison of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and impedance-based devices. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34:1676–89. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002831.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Mitsiopoulos N, Baumgartner RN, Heymsfield SB, Lyons W, Gallagher D, Ross R. Cadaver validation of skeletal muscle measurement by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography. J Appl Physiol. 1998;85:115–22. https://doi.org/10.1152/JAPPL.1998.85.1.115.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Amini B, Boyle SP, Boutin RD, Lenchik L. Approaches to assessment of muscle mass and Myosteatosis on computed tomography: a systematic review. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019;74:1671–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/GERONA/GLZ034.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Boutin RD, Yao L, Canter RJ, Lenchik L. Sarcopenia: current concepts and imaging implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:W255–66. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14635.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Malmstrom TK, Morley JE. SARC-F: a simple questionnaire to rapidly diagnose sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14:531–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAMDA.2013.05.018.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Imamura K, Yamamoto S, Suzuki Y, Matsuzawa R, Harada M, Yoshikoshi S, et al. Limitations of SARC-F as a screening tool for sarcopenia in patients on hemodialysis. Nephron. 2022;146:32–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000518810.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and electrical impedance myography for evaluating lumbar skeletal muscle composition
Authors: Domenico Albano
Salvatore Gitto
Jacopo Vitale
Susan Bernareggi
Alberto Aliprandi
Luca Maria Sconfienza
Carmelo Messina
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Sarcopenia
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05902-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and electrical impedance myography for evaluating lumbar skeletal muscle composition

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Biomechanical analysis of vertebral wedge deformity in elderly women with quantitative CT-based finite element analysis

Analysis of high-risk factors for preoperative DVT in elderly patients with simple hip fractures and construction of a nomogram prediction model

Intercalary frozen autografts for reconstruction of bone defects following meta-/diaphyseal tumor resection at the extremities

Visualized simulative surgery in preoperative planning for proximal femoral varus osteotomy of DDH

Clinical application of modified Crain classification in the Design of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with remnant preservation

Could radiofrequency echographic multispectrometry (REMS) overcome the overestimation in BMD by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at the lumbar spine?