The relationship between EMG and change in thickness of transversus abdominis

McMeeken, Joan; Beith, Iain; Newham, Di J.; Milligan, Peter; Critchley, Duncan

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.01.007

Cited by 376 publications

(318 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

296

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…• Although previous studies found similar reliability values for B and M (motion) modes of US [19,27], we think that the M mode could provide better reproducibility for thickness changes. The main reason for this is that the operator would acquire one image only when using the M mode, compared to acquiring two images when using the B mode.…”

Section: Reproducibility Thicknessmentioning

confidence: 58%

An investigation of the reproducibility of ultrasound measures of abdominal muscle activation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ultrasound (US) measures are used by clinicians and researchers to evaluate improvements in activity of the abdominal muscles in patients with low back pain. Studies evaluating the reproducibility of these US measures provide some information; however, little is known about the reproducibility of these US measures over time in patients with low back pain. The objectives of this study were to estimate the reproducibility of ultrasound measurements of automatic activation of the lateral abdominal wall muscles using a leg force task in patients with chronic low back pain. Thirty-five participants from an existing randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial participated in the study. A reproducibility analysis was undertaken from all patients using data collected at baseline and after treatment. The reproducibility of measurements of thickness, muscle activation (thickness changes) and muscle improvement/deterioration after intervention (differences in thickness changes from single images made before and after treatment) was analysed. The reproducibility of static images (thickness) was excellent (ICC 2,1 = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96-0.97, standard error of the measurement (SEM) = 0.04 cm, smallest detectable change (SDC) = 0.11 cm), the reproducibility of thickness changes was moderate (ICC 2,1 = 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.76, SEM = 15%, SDC 41%), while the reproducibility of differences in thickness changes from single images with statistical adjustment for duplicate measures was poor (ICC 2,1 = 0.44, 95% CI 0.33-0.58, SEM = 21%, SDC = 66.5%). Improvements in the testing protocol must be performed in order to enhance reproducibility of US as an outcome measure for abdominal muscle activation.

show abstract

Section: Reproducibility Thicknessmentioning

confidence: 58%

An investigation of the reproducibility of ultrasound measures of abdominal muscle activation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Measuring thickness of the lateral abdominal muscles with USI has been validated against reference criterion measures such as MRI. 9 Although there is debate regarding whether the relationship between changes in muscle thickness of the lateral abdominal muscles relative to EMG is linear 25 or curvilinear, 11 there is agreement among researchers that during isometric contractions an increase in muscle activation (up to approximately 20% of maximum voluntary contraction) is associated with an increase in muscle thickness. However, generalizability of these studies is difficult secondary to their small sample size (n 10) and the use of only isometric contractions while the trunk is held in a relatively neutral posture.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent evidence suggests that USI can differentiate the behavior of these deep abdominal muscles through a quantification of a change in muscle thickness. 25 Therefore, the purpose of this study was to characterize changes in muscle thickness of the TrA and IO muscles during 6 commonly performed trunk-strengthening exercises using USI in healthy subjects without LBP and to determine whether differences varied based on age.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Deep Abdominal Muscle Thickness During Common Trunk-Strengthening Exercises Using Ultrasound Imaging

Teyhen¹,

Rieger²,

Westrick³

et al. 2008

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

127

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These errors are larger than those found in the present study, although this reflects the fact that Warner et al (2008) were measuring much larger objects (13-18.86cm 2 ). Only one previous study has compared linear and curvilinear ultrasound transducers on muscle thickness and found no significant difference for the transversus abdominis (TrA) muscle with the two transducers (McMeeken et al, 2004). The TrA is relatively thin compared with multifidus (approximately 0.5cm compared with 2.7cm), so there was less scope for finding differences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound transducer shape has no effect on measurements of lumbar multifidus muscle size

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Evidence is currently lacking for guidance on ultrasound transducer configuration (shape) when imaging muscle to measure its size. This study investigated measurements of lumbar multifidus with curvilinear and linear ultrasound transducers.Method: Fifteen asymptomatic, males (aged 21-32 years) had their right lumbar multifidus imaged at L3 by an experienced ultrasound imager. Two transverse images were taken with two transducers (5MHz curvilinear and 6MHz linear) and linear/CSA measurements were made offline. Reliability of image interpretation between days was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Muscle measurements using the two transducers were compared using Bland and Altman plots and paired t-tests. Relationships between CSA and linear measurements were examined using Pearson's Correlation Coefficients.Results: There were no significant differences ( >0.05) in the measurements of the two transducers. Thickness and CSA measurements had small differences between transducers, with mean differences of 0.01cm (SDdiff=0.21cm) and 0.03cm 2 (SDdiff=0.58cm 2 ) respectively. Width measures had a mean difference of 0.14cm, with the linear transducer giving larger measures.Significant correlations (p <0.001) were found between all linear measures and CSA, with both transducers ( =0.78-0.89). Interpretation of images was generally reliable between days, with thickness measures being the most repeatable (ICC>0.93) and CSA the least repeatable using the linear transducer (ICC=0.78). Conclusion:Measurements of multifidus at L3 were not influenced by the configuration of transducers of similar frequency. For the purposes of image interpretation, the curvilinear transducer gave better reflection of the lateral muscle border than the linear transducer, suggesting it as the preferable for imaging lumbar multifidus.

show abstract

The relationship between EMG and change in thickness of transversus abdominis

Cited by 376 publications

References 20 publications

An investigation of the reproducibility of ultrasound measures of abdominal muscle activation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain

An investigation of the reproducibility of ultrasound measures of abdominal muscle activation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain

Changes in Deep Abdominal Muscle Thickness During Common Trunk-Strengthening Exercises Using Ultrasound Imaging

Ultrasound transducer shape has no effect on measurements of lumbar multifidus muscle size

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About