2007
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2007.2532
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterization of Lateral Abdominal Muscle Thickness in Persons with Lower Extremity Amputations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…45 A further limitation is the fact that the LPP cohort was slightly older than the control cohort. Although the impact of aging on PMCT thickness is unknown, abdominal muscle thickness has been shown to be independent of age or gender.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…45 A further limitation is the fact that the LPP cohort was slightly older than the control cohort. Although the impact of aging on PMCT thickness is unknown, abdominal muscle thickness has been shown to be independent of age or gender.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, ultrasonography has been effectively employed to evaluate the morphological changes in muscle thickness or displacement [36][37][38][39][40], muscle fiber [41][42][43], pennation angle [44,45], and cross-sectional area [46,47]. It has also been suggested that ultrasound parameters may characterize muscular pain, injury and dysfunction [48][49][50][51][52].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although, for reasons explained above, it would be inappropriate to assume that the smaller change in thickness in the lumbopelvic pain cohort was due solely to a decreased amount of muscle activity, knowing that a 24% and an 11% change in thickness of the TrA and IO, respectively, is expected during an active straight leg raise test is potentially useful. In addition to this example and in keeping with the abdominal wall muscles as an example, investigators have measured thickness, length, and/or CSA in both resting 7,12,54,59,63 and dynamic conditions (eg, abdominal drawing-in maneuver, 11,69 respiration, 1,72 balance, upper limb tasks, 51 and walking tasks) within various (low back, lumbopelvic, and pelvic girdle pain, 67 amputees, 62 postpartum, 8 and healthy) cohorts. These studies provide normal resting values and/or describe patterns of architectural change.…”
Section: Distinguishing Between Patient and Healthy Populations With mentioning
confidence: 99%