Dynamic ultrasonography for assessing the nerve-fasciae relationship in entrapment syndromes

Pirri, Carmelo; Stecco, Carla; Fede, Caterina; De, Raffaele; Özçakar, Levent

doi:10.11152/mu-2982

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, with US, it is possible to demonstrate the thickening of a fascial layer, the changing of its echogenicity, and to analyze the relationships between fasciae, nerves, and vessels. According to some studies [ 11 , 12 ], it is also possible to investigate the gliding between muscles and the adjacent fascial layers, and between the various fascial layers, that seem to be related to myofascial pain. A review by Fede et al [ 13 ] reported that the ultrasound data collected for the same fascia differed depending on the ultrasonographer, probe position, and/or intra-individual anatomic variability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound Imaging of Brachial and Antebrachial Fasciae

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge about fasciae has become increasingly relevant in connection to regional anesthesiology, given the growing interest in fascial plane, interfascial, and nerve blocks. Ultrasound (US) imaging, thanks to high definition, provides the possibility to visualize and measure their thickness. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare, by US imaging, the thickness of deep/muscular fasciae in different points of the arm and forearm. An observational study has been performed using US imaging to measure brachial and antebrachial fasciae thickness at anterior and posterior regions, respectively, of the arm and forearm at different levels with a new protocol in a sample of 25 healthy volunteers. Results of fascial thickness revealed statistically significant differences (p < 0.0001) in the brachial fascia between the anterior and the posterior regions; in terms of the antebrachial fascia, no statistically significant difference was present (p > 0.05) between the regions/levels. Moreover, regarding the posterior region/levels, the brachial fascia had a greater thickness (mean 0.81 ± 0.20 mm) than the antebrachial fascia (mean 0.71 ± 0.20 mm); regarding the anterior region/levels, the antebrachial fascia was thicker (mean 0.70 ± 0.2 mm) than the brachial fascia (mean 0.61 ± 0.11 mm). In addition, the intra-rater reliability reported good reliability (ICC2,k: 0.88). US imaging helps to improve grading of fascial dysfunction or disease by revealing subclinical lesions, clinically invisible fascial changes, and one of the US parameters to reliably evaluate is the thickness in the different regions and levels.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%