The content of a training package in diagnostic ultrasound for physiotherapists

Evaluating a Muscle Ultrasound Education Program: Theoretical Knowledge, Hands-on Skills, Reliability, and Satisfaction of Critical Care Physiotherapists

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate learning results of critical care physiotherapists participating in a muscle ultrasound (MUS) educational program.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A custom-made 20-hour MUS course was performed over a 2-week time period, including knobs familiarization, patient positioning, anatomic landmarks, image acquisition, and limb muscle measurements.

PARTICIPANTS

Nineteen critical care physiotherapists with little to no prior experience in ultrasound (N=19).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Theoretical knowledge, hands-on skills acquisition, and satisfaction were assessed. Inter- and intrarater reliability on landmarks, thickness, and pennation angle of quadriceps between participants was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Reliability among instructors measured prior to the course was also reported as a reference.

RESULTS

The percentage score (mean±SD) of knowledge questionnaires was 69±11 (pre-course), 89±10 (post-course), and 92±9 (hands-on skills). Course satisfaction scores ranged from 90%-100%. Pooled interrater reliability of participants (median ICC [interquartile range]) was good (0.70 [0.59-0.79]) for thickness, moderate (0.47 [0.46-0.92]) for landmarks, and absent (0.00 [0.00-0.05]) for pennation angle and the intrarater reliability was good (0.76 [0.51-0.91]) for thickness and weak (0.35 [0.29-0.52]) for pennation angle. Interrater ICC values for instructors were excellent (0.90) for thickness, good (0.67) for landmarks, and moderate (0.41) for pennation angle and intrarater ICC values were excellent (0.94) for thickness and good (0.75) for pennation angle.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our sample was quite small and homogeneous, increased theoretical knowledge, high hands-on performance acquisition, and good satisfaction of physiotherapists were observed. Reliability was moderate to excellent for thickness and landmarks and absent to weak for pennation angle. Landmarking and pennation angle remain challenges for physiotherapist training in the application of MUS. Further studies are needed to identify variables that could modify reliability during MUS training.

Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology: A scoping review

Background

Lumbar multifidus (LM) is regarded as the major stabilizing muscle of the spine. The effects of exercise therapy in low back pain (LBP) are attributed to this muscle. A current literature review is warranted, however, given the complexity of LM morphology and the inconsistency of anatomical descriptions in the literature.

Methods

Scoping review of studies on LM morphology including major anatomy atlases. All relevant studies were searched in PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE until June 2019. Anatomy atlases were retrieved from multiple university libraries and online. All studies and atlases were screened for the following LM parameters: location, imaging methods, spine levels, muscle trajectory, muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, and diameter. The quality of the studies and atlases was also assessed using a five-item evaluation system.

Results

In all, 303 studies and 19 anatomy atlases were included in this review. In most studies, LM morphology was determined by MRI, ultrasound imaging, or drawings – particularly for levels L4–S1. In 153 studies, LM is described as a superficial muscle only, in 72 studies as a deep muscle only, and in 35 studies as both superficial and deep. Anatomy atlases predominantly depict LM as a deep muscle covered by the erector spinae and thoracolumbar fascia. About 42% of the studies had high quality scores, with 39% having moderate scores and 19% having low scores. The quality of figures in anatomy atlases was ranked as high in one atlas, moderate in 15 atlases, and low in 3 atlases.

Discussion

Anatomical studies of LM exhibit inconsistent findings, describing its location as superficial (50%), deep (25%), or both (12%). This is in sharp contrast to anatomy atlases, which depict LM predominantly as deep muscle. Within the limitations of the self-developed quality-assessment tool, high-quality scores were identified in a majority of studies (42%), but in only one anatomy atlas.

Conclusions

We identified a lack of standardization in the depiction and description of LM morphology. This could affect the precise understanding of its role in background and therapy in LBP patients. Standardization of research methodology on LM morphology is recommended. Anatomy atlases should be updated on LM morphology.