Advertisement

Dysphagia

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 375–380 | Cite as

Cross-Sectional Area of the Anterior Belly of the Digastric Muscle: Comparison of MRI and Ultrasound Measures

  • Phoebe R. Macrae
  • Richard D. Jones
  • Daniel J. Myall
  • Tracy R. Melzer
  • Maggie-Lee Huckabee
Original Article

Abstract

Changes in morphometry of head and neck muscles have received little attention in research relative to limb muscles. While recent literature suggests that high-frequency ultrasound transducers can provide superior spatial resolution compared to that of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), no studies have compared these imaging methods for investigating the submental muscle group. This preliminary study sought to compare ultrasound and MRI as a method of quantifying the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the submental muscle group. Measurements were taken from coronal ultrasound and MRI images in 11 healthy participants. Comparisons were limited to the anterior belly of the digastric muscle because of differences in imaging resolution. Ultrasound CSA measurements were smaller than MRI measurements (p = 0.01) by 10 % (95 % CI = −18 to −2). Correlations were significant and relatively high (left: r = 0.909, p < 0.001; right: r = 0.776, p = 0.005). Ultrasound imaging has the advantages of natural participant positioning, superior clarity of muscle borders of the submental muscles, requires less acquisition time, and is a less expensive method of imaging compared to MRI. This preliminary study has shown that ultrasound is a viable imaging modality for quantitative measurements of the anterior belly of the digastric muscle and has advantages over MRI beyond cost and accessibility.

Keywords

Deglutition Deglutition disorders Ultrasound Magnetic resonance imaging Submental muscles Cross-sectional area Suprahyoid muscles 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted during the tenure of a Postgraduate Scholarship of the New Zealand Neurological Foundation. The manuscript was completed with the support of a Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga Doctoral Bridging Grant. The authors thank the Christchurch Radiology Group for the generous use of their ultrasound equipment, and Gareth Leeper and Simon Felton for their input regarding the MRI sequences. The authors also thank Professor Thomas Marquardt for the generous donation that made the MRI scans possible.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Aagaard P, Andersen JL, Dyhre-Poulsen P, Leffers AM, Wagner A, Magnusson SP, Halkjaer-Kristensen J, Simonsen EB. A mechanism for increased contractile strength of human pennate muscle in response to strength training: changes in muscle architecture. J Physiol. 2001;534:613–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kubo K, Ohgo K, Takeishi R, Yoshinaga K, Tsunoda N, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Effects of isometric training at different knee angles on the muscle-tendon complex in vivo. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2006;16:159–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Narici MV, Landoni L, Minetti AE. Assessment of human knee extensor muscles stress from in vivo physiological cross-sectional area and strength measurements. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1992;65:438–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robbins J, Gangnon RE, Theis SM, Kays SA, Hewitt AL, Hind JA. The effects of lingual exercise on swallowing in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:1483–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robbins J, Kays SA, Gangnon RE, Hind JA, Hewitt AL, Gentry LR, Taylor AJ. The effects of lingual exercise in stroke patients with dysphagia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:150–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stonecipher MR, Jorizzo JL, Monu J, Walker F, Sutej PG. Dermatomyositis with normal muscle enzyme concentrations. A single-blind study of the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound. Arch Dermatol. 1994;130:1294–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engstrom CM, Loeb GE, Reid JG, Forrest WJ, Avruch L. Morphometry of the human thigh muscles. A comparison between anatomical sections and computer tomographic and magnetic resonance images. J Anat. 1991;176:139–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hudash G, Albright JP, McAuley E, Martin RK, Fulton M. Cross-sectional thigh components: computerized tomographic assessment. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1985;17:417–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sipila S, Suominen H. Muscle ultrasonography and computed tomography in elderly trained and untrained women. Muscle Nerve. 1993;16:294–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sipila S, Suominen H. Effects of strength and endurance training on thigh and leg muscle mass and composition in elderly women. J Appl Physiol. 1995;78:334–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hodges PW, Gandevia SC. Pitfalls of intramuscular electromyographic recordings from the human costal diaphragm. Clin Neurophysiol. 2000;111:1420–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maganaris CN, Baltzopoulos V, Sargeant AJ. Repeated contractions alter the geometry of human skeletal muscle. J Appl Physiol. 2002;93:2089–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reimers CD, Harder T, Saxe H. Age-related muscle atrophy does not affect all muscles and can partly be compensated by physical activity: an ultrasound study. J Neurol Sci. 1998;159:60–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reimers CD, Schlotter B, Eicke BM, Witt TN. Calf enlargement in neuromuscular diseases: a quantitative ultrasound study in 350 patients and review of the literature. J Neurol Sci. 1996;143:46–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scholten RR, Pillen S, Verrips A, Zwarts MJ. Quantitative ultrasonography of skeletal muscles in children: normal values. Muscle Nerve. 2003;27:693–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sipila S, Suominen H. Ultrasound imaging of the quadriceps muscle in elderly athletes and untrained men. Muscle Nerve. 1991;14:527–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sipila S, Suominen H. Quantitative ultrasonography of muscle: detection of adaptations to training in elderly women. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:1173–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Watkin KL, Diouf I, Gallagher TM, Logemann JA, Rademaker AW, Ettema SL. Ultrasonic quantification of geniohyoid cross-sectional area and tissue composition: a preliminary study of age and radiation effects. Head Neck. 2001;23:467–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weiss LW, Clark FC, Howard DG. Effects of heavy-resistance triceps surae muscle training on strength and muscularity of men and women. Phys Ther. 1988;68:208–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Emshoff R, Bertram S, Strobl H. Ultrasonographic cross-sectional characteristics of muscles of the head and neck. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;87:93–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miyatani M, Kanehisa H, Ito M, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T. The accuracy of volume estimates using ultrasound muscle thickness measurements in different muscle groups. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004;91:264–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Juul-Kristensen B, Bojsen-Møller F, Holst E, Ekdahl C. Comparison of muscle sizes and moment arms of two rotator cuff muscles measured by ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Ultrasound. 2000;11:161–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schedel H, Reimers CD, Nagele M, Witt TN, Pongratz DE, Vogl T. Imaging techniques in myotonic dystrophy. A comparative study of ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of skeletal muscles. Eur J Radiol. 1992;15:230–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ahmed R, Nazarian LN. Overview of musculoskeletal sonography. Ultrasound Q. 2010;26:27–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jacobson JA. Musculoskeletal ultrasound: focused impact on MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:619–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gelman A, Hill J. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rudney JD, Ji Z, Larson CJ. The prediction of saliva swallowing frequency in humans from estimates of salivary flow-rate and the volume of saliva swallowed. Arch Oral Biol. 1995;40:507–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phoebe R. Macrae
    • 1
  • Richard D. Jones
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Daniel J. Myall
    • 3
  • Tracy R. Melzer
    • 3
    • 4
  • Maggie-Lee Huckabee
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Communication DisordersUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  3. 3.New Zealand Brain Research InstituteChristchurchNew Zealand
  4. 4.Department of MedicineUniversity of OtagoChristchurchNew Zealand
  5. 5.Department of Medical Physics and BioengineeringCanterbury District Health BoardChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations