Image acquisition stability of fixated musculoskeletal sonography in an exercise setting: a quantitative analysis and comparison with freehand acquisition

  • H. Maarten HeresEmail author
  • Marloes Sjoerdsma
  • Thijs Schoots
  • Marcel C. M. Rutten
  • Frans N. van de Vosse
  • Richard G. P. Lopata
Original Article–Physics & Engineering



In dynamic musculoskeletal sonography, probe fixation can contribute to field of view (FOV) consistency, which is necessary for valid analysis of architectural parameters. In this volunteer study, the achieved FOV consistency in fixated ultrasonography was quantified and compared with freehand acquisition.


During five resting periods during cycling exercise, longitudinal B-mode images of the vastus lateralis (VL) muscle were acquired on one thigh with a fixated probe, and by two trained observers on the other thigh. In each acquisition, the structural similarity compared to the first resting period was determined using the complex wavelet structural similarity index (CW-SSIM). Also, the pennation angle of the VL was measured. Both CW-SSIM and pennation angle were compared between fixated and freehand acquisition. Furthermore, the compression of tissue by the probe fixation was measured.


In fixated acquisition, a significantly higher structural similarity (p < 0.05) and an improved repeatability of pennation angle measurement were obtained compared to freehand acquisition. Probe fixation compressed muscle tissue by 12% on average.


Quantification of the structural similarity showed an increase in FOV consistency with sonography compared to freehand acquisition. The demonstrated feasibility of long-term fixated acquisition might be attractive in many medical fields and sports, and for reduction of work-related ergonomic problems among sonographers.


Musculoskeletal sonography Ultrasound Image quality Probe fixation Structural similarity 



This study was funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. 318067.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The research proposal was reviewed by the local Medical Ethics Committee of the Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands, and ethical approval was waived.


  1. 1.
    Shung KK. Diagnostic ultrasound: imaging and blood flow measurements. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2015. p. 2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zamorani MP, Valle M. Muscle and Tendon. Ultrasound musculoskeletal system. Springer, Berlin 2007. p. 45–96. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pillen S, van Alfen N. Skeletal muscle ultrasound. Neurol Res. 2011;33:1016–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peetrons P. Ultrasound of muscles. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:35–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sikdar S, Wei Q, Cortes N. Dynamic ultrasound imaging applications to quantify musculoskeletal function. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2014;42:126–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cronin NJ, Lichtwark G. The use of ultrasound to study muscle-tendon function in human posture and locomotion. Gait Posture. 2013;37:305–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drakonaki EE, Allen GM, Wilson DJ. Ultrasound elastography for musculoskeletal applications. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:1435–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Konofagou EE, D’Hooge J, Ophir J. Myocardial elastography: a feasibility study in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002;28:475–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Newman JS, Adler R, Rubin JM. Power doppler sonography: use in measuring alterations in muscle blood volume after exercise. J Diagn Med Sonogr. 1997;13:266.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krix M, Weber M-A, Krakowski-Roosen H, et al. Assessment of skeletal muscle perfusion using contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:431–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klimstra M, Dowling J, Durkin JL, et al. The effect of ultrasound probe orientation on muscle architecture measurement. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2007;17:504–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shih Y-F. Active patellar tracking measurement: a novel device using ultrasound. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32:1209–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peltonen J, Cronin NJ, Stenroth L, et al. Viscoelastic properties of the Achilles tendon in vivo. Springerplus. 2013;2:212.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eranki A, Cortes N, Ferenček ZG, Sikdar S. A novel application of musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging. J Vis Exp. 2013. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hodges PW, Pengel LHM, Herbert RD, et al. Measurement of muscle contraction with ultrasound imaging. Muscle Nerve. 2003;27:682–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aggeloussis N, Giannakou E, Albracht K, et al. Reproducibility of fascicle length and pennation angle of gastrocnemius medialis in human gait in vivo. Gait Posture. 2010;31:73–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giannakou E, Aggeloussis N, Arampatzis A. Reproducibility of gastrocnemius medialis muscle architecture during treadmill running. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2011;21:1081–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mairet S, Maïsetti O, Portero P. Homogeneity and reproducibility of in vivo fascicle length and pennation determined by ultrasonography in human vastus lateralis muscle. Sci Sport. 2006;21:268–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fukunaga T, Ichinose Y, Ito M, et al. Determination of fascicle length and pennation in a contracting human muscle in vivo. J Appl Physiol. 1997;82:354–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, et al. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2004;13:600–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhou W, Simoncelli EP. Translation insensitive image similarity in complex wavelet domain. In: Proceedings (ICASSP’05) of IEEE international conferences on acoust speech, Signal Process 2005. IEEE; 2005; p. 573–6.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Renieblas GP, Nogués AT, González AM, et al. Structural similarity index family for image quality assessment in radiological images. J Med Imaging. 2017;4:035501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kowalik-Urbaniak I, Brunet D, Wang J, Koff D, et al. The quest for “diagnostically lossless” medical image compression: a comparative study of objective quality metrics for compressed medical images. SPIE Med Imaging. 2014;9037:903716–7.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sampat MP, Zhou W, Gupta S, et al. Complex wavelet structural similarity: a new image similarity index. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2009;18:2385–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Portilla J, Simoncelli EP. A parametric texture model based on joint statistics of complex wavelet coefficients. Int J Comput Vis. 2000;40:49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jacobson JA. Musculoskeletal ultrasound: focused impact on MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:619–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bénard MR, Becher JG, Harlaar J, et al. Anatomical information is needed in ultrasound imaging of muscle to avoid potentially substantial errors in measurement of muscle geometry. Muscle Nerve. 2009;39:652–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ema R, Akagi R, Wakahara T, et al. Training-induced changes in architecture of human skeletal muscles: current evidence and unresolved issues. J Phys Fit Sport Med. 2016;5:37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Muraki S, Fukumoto K, Fukuda O. Prediction of the muscle strength by the muscle thickness and hardness using ultrasound muscle hardness meter. Springerplus. 2013;2:457.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Linder-Ganz E, Shabshin N, Itzchak Y, et al. Assessment of mechanical conditions in sub-dermal tissues during sitting: a combined experimental-MRI and finite element approach. J Biomech. 2007;40:1443–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Evans K, Roll S, Baker J. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSD) among registered diagnostic medical sonographers and vascular technologists: a representative sample. J Diagn Med Sonogr. 2009;25:287–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gremark Simonsen J, Axmon A, Nordander C, Arvidsson I. Neck and upper extremity pain in sonographers—associations with occupational factors. Appl Ergon. 2017;58:245–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Coffin C. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in sonographers: a review of causes and types of injury and best practices for reducing injury risk. Reports Med Imaging. 2014;7:15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hecht HS, DeBord L, Sotomayor N, et al. Supine bicycle stress echocardiography: peak exercise imaging is superior to postexercise imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1993;6:265–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nakashiki K, Kisanuki A, Otsuji Y, et al. Usefulness of a novel ultrasound transducer for continuous monitoring treadmill exercise echocardiography to assess coronary artery disease. Circ J. 2006;70:1297–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chandraratna PAN, Gajanayaka R, Makkena SM, Wijegunaratne K, Hafeez H, Vijayasekaran S, et al. “Hands-Free” continuous echocardiography during treadmill exercise using a novel ultrasound transducer. Echocardiography. 2010;27:563–6. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Maarten Heres
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marloes Sjoerdsma
    • 1
  • Thijs Schoots
    • 2
  • Marcel C. M. Rutten
    • 1
  • Frans N. van de Vosse
    • 1
  • Richard G. P. Lopata
    • 1
  1. 1.Cardiovascular Biomechanics Group, Department of Biomedical EngineeringEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of CardiologyMáxima Medical CentreVeldhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations