Title

Biceps femoris long-head architecture assessed using different sonographic techniques

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title

Medicine and science in sports and exercise

ISSN

1530-0315

Volume

50

Issue

12

First Page

2584

Last Page

2594

PubMed ID

30067589

Publisher

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

School

School of Medical and Health Sciences / Centre for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR)

Comments

Originally published as:

Pimenta, R., Blazevich, A. J., & Freitas, S. R. (2018). Biceps femoris long-head architecture assessed using different sonographic techniques. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 50(12). 2584-2594.

Original article available here.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the repeatability of, and measurement agreement between, four sonographic techniques used to quantify biceps femoris long head (BFlh) architecture: (i) static-image with linear extrapolation; extended field-of-view (EFOV) with linear ultrasound probe path (linear-EFOV), using either (ii) straight or (iii) segmented analyses; and (iv) EFOV with nonlinear probe path and segmented analysis (nonlinear-EFOV) to follow the complex fascicle trajectories.

METHODS: Twenty individuals (24.4 ± 5.7 yr; 175 ± 0.8 cm; 73 ± 9.0 kg) without history of hamstrings strain injury were tested in two sessions separated by 1 h. An ultrasound scanner coupled with 6-cm linear probe was used to assess BFlh architecture in B-mode.

RESULTS: The ultrasound probe was positioned at 52.0% ± 5.0% of femur length and 57.0% ± 6.0% of BFlh length. We found an acceptable repeatability when assessing BFlh fascicle length (ICC3,k = 0.86-0.95; SEM = 1.9-3.2 mm) and angle (ICC3,k = 0.86-0.97; SEM = 0.8°-1.1) using all sonographic techniques. However, the nonlinear-EFOV technique showed the highest repeatability (fascicle length ICC3,k = 0.95; fascicle angle, ICC3,k = 0.97). The static-image technique, which estimated 35.4% ± 7.0% of the fascicle length, overestimated fascicle length (8%-11%) and underestimated fascicle angle (8%-9%) compared with EFOV techniques. Also, the rank order of individuals varied by approximately 15% between static-image and nonlinear-EFOV (segmented) when assessing the fascicle length.

CONCLUSIONS: Although all techniques showed good repeatability, absolute errors were observed using static-image (7.9 ± 6.1 mm for fascicle length) and linear-EFOV (between 3.7 ± 3.0 and 4.2 ± 3.7 mm), probably because the complex fascicle trajectories were not followed. The rank order of individuals for fascicle length and angle were also different between static-image and nonlinear-EFOV, so different muscle function and injury risk estimates could likely be made when using this technique.

DOI

10.1249/MSS.0000000000001731

Share

 
COinS