No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic values of normal and effected tissues with two techniques using strain elastography and tissues characterization. This study was carried out on a breast phantom containing all human body parameters. Analysis was performed using a lone phantom to correlate a relation between the values of Strain Elastography (SE) and first order texture parameters results. For SE SonixTouch Q+ (Ultrasonix Medical Corporation, 130-4311 Viking Way, Richmond, Canada) device using a linear-array ultrasound probe at a frequency of 10MHz with a gain of 40%. Elastography breast phantom was purchased from CAE healthcare USA, 3600 Edgelake Drive Sarasota FL, USA. For tissue characterization a Region of Interest (ROI) that encompasses both (normal and stiffer) areas were selected. MAZDA software was used to carry out the image analysis (mean and variance) of the tumour and healthy tissue, ROI of 1600 pixels at both regions was selected. An affirmative and resilient outcome was observed between the numerals of normal and tumor tissues, both for SE and first order texture parameters values. After our study we suggest that SE and tissue characterisation via first order texture parameter is a reliable technique to highlight normal and tumor tissue (with respect to same reference, for SE technique only). SE and first order texture parameters (mean and variance) paved way in highlighting the breast tumors fully. It is suggested that SE being more reliable approach in determining the stiffness for breast lesion, as it produces the results with real time imaging. However texture parameter gives an objective assessment of the image with a discriminating feature of the tissue.

Background This study aimed to investigate the relationship between stiffness of the bicep brachii muscle (BBM) and distal bicep tendon (DBT) and effects of weight lifting (pre- to post-workout changes) among groups with different body mass indexes (BMI). Methods Participants were divided into four groups according to BMI: A, underweight (< 18.5 kg/m2); B, normal (18.5–24.9 kg/m2); C, overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m2); and D, obese (> 30.0 kg/m2). All participants were males who were untrained and had sedentary lifestyle without involvement in sports activities for the past 12 months. Ultrasonographic measurements to determine muscle and tendon stiffness was performed on the dominant side (i.e., right side) of the upper extremities in all participants. Results Twenty-one healthy and untrained males volunteered to participate in this study; 14 were nonsmokers and 7 were smokers. The mean age and BMI were 22.5 ± 1.5 years and 23.8 ± 6.3 kg/m2, respectively. Groups A, B, C, and D had four, ten, four, and three participants, respectively. The BBM thickness did not increase with increase in BMI and was not significantly different (P > .05) between groups. The BBM stiffness was significantly different (all P < .05) from pre- to post-workout values in all groups, whereas DBT stiffness did not follow the same trend. Conclusions Our study revealed that the BBM thickness is independent of BMI. After weight lifting, BBM stiffness in groups A and B increased for BBM compared to those in groups C and D. A similar trend was also recorded for DBT. Weight lifting in concentric and eccentric motions affects the stiffness of the BBM and DBT, thus weight lifting plays a role in adjusting the stiffness of the BBM and DBT. Trial registration The study was approved by ethics committee of the College of Applied Medical Sciences (CAMS 080-3839; March 14, 2018).