Mapping of lumbar multifidus stiffness Quantification in ankylosing spondylitis with shear-wave elastography

Ultrasound elastography of back muscle biomechanical properties: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current methods

OBJECTIVES

To report the current elastography methods used to quantify back muscles' biomechanical characteristics in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKd) and inform on their reliability, validity, and responsiveness.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane library and grey literature were consulted. Predefined criteria allowed for study selection and data extraction. The quality of evidence was rated using the COSMIN tool. Data were meta-analyzed in terms of pooled intraclass correlation coefficient (pICC) for reliability and pooled standardized mean difference (pSMD) for validity and responsiveness. Heterogeneity was assessed.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine studies were included in the meta-analysis (total number of participants N = 3178). Three elastography methods were identified: strain imaging (SI; number of cohorts M = 26), shear wave imaging (SWI; M = 50), and vibration sonoelastography (VSE; M = 3). Strain imaging and SWI studies reported good reliability measurement properties (pICC > 0.70) and a medium pSMD (0.58 for SI and 0.60 for SWI; p ≤ 0.020) in discriminating MSKd from controls' condition (validity). Strain imaging studies reported a medium pSMD (0.64; p = 0.005) in detecting within-group changes over time, whereas SWI pSMD was very high (1.24; p = 0.005). Only SWI reported significant but small pSMD (0.30; p = 0.003) in detecting between-group changes over time. The small number of VSE studies could not be meta-analyzed. Heterogeneity was high (I-squared > 90%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Elastography presents good reliability results and a medium pSMD in discriminating MSKd from control conditions. Responsiveness data suggest detectable changes within groups over time using SI and SWI, calling for long-term longitudinal studies. Assessing changes between groups over time using elastography still needs to be proven. Highly significant heterogeneity limits meta-analytic results.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

While still in its early-stage exploration phase, musculoskeletal ultrasound elastography may reliably quantify back muscles' biomechanics in asymptomatic individuals, moderately discriminate back musculoskeletal disorders and detect biomechanical changes over time in these conditions, calling for long-term longitudinal studies.

KEY POINTS

Ultrasound elastography is reviewed for back pain and related musculoskeletal disorder assessments. Growing literature supports good reproducibility, some validity and responsiveness. Back muscle elastography considers assumptions calling for standardized protocols.

Is musculoskeletal pain associated with increased muscle stiffness? Evidence map and critical appraisal of muscle measurements using shear wave elastography

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Approximately 21% of the world's population suffers from musculoskeletal conditions, often associated with sensations of stiff muscles. Targeted therapy requires knowing whether typically involved muscles are objectively stiffer compared to asymptomatic individuals. Muscle stiffness is quantified using ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE). Publications on SWE-based comparisons of muscle stiffness between individuals with and without musculoskeletal pain are increasing rapidly. This work reviewed and mapped the existing evidence regarding objectively measured muscle stiffness in musculoskeletal pain conditions and surveyed current methods of applying SWE to measure muscle stiffness.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and CINAHL using the keywords "muscle stiffness", "shear wave elastography", "pain", "asymptomatic controls" and synonyms. The search was supplemented by a hand search using Google Scholar. Included articles were critically appraised with the AXIS tool, supplemented by items related to SWE methods. Results were visually mapped and narratively described.

RESULTS

Thirty of 137 identified articles were included. High-quality evidence was missing. The results comprise studies reporting lower stiffness in symptomatic participants, no differences between groups and higher stiffness in symptomatic individuals. Results differed between pain conditions and muscles, and also between studies that examined the same muscle(s) and pathology. The methods of the application of SWE were inconsistent and the reporting was often incomplete.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing evidence regarding the objective stiffness of muscles in musculoskeletal pain conditions is conflicting. Methodological differences may explain most of the inconsistencies between findings. Methodological standards for SWE measurements of muscles are urgently required.

Quantitative Evaluation of the Lumbar Multifidus Muscle by Shear Wave Dispersion in Healthy Adults: A Preliminary Study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the application value of shear wave dispersion (SWD) in healthy adults with the lumbar multifidus muscle (LMM), to determine the range of normal reference values, and to analyze the influences of factors on the parameter.

METHODS

Ninety-five healthy volunteers participated in the study, from whom 2-dimensional, shear wave elastography (SWE), and SWD images of the bilateral LMM were acquired in three positions (prone, standing, and anterior flexion). Subcutaneous fat thickness (SFH), SWE velocity, and SWD slope were measured accordingly for analyses.

RESULTS

The mean SWD slope of the bilateral LMM in the prone position was as follows: left: 14.8 ± 3.1 (m/second)/kHz (female) and 13.0 ± 2.5 (m/second)/kHz (male); right: 14.8 ± 3.7 (m/second)/kHz (female) and 14.2 ± 3.4 (m/second)/kHz (male). In the prone position, there was a weak negative correlation between the bilateral LMM SWD slope of activity level 2 and level 1 (β = -1.5 (2 versus 1, left), -1.9 (2 versus 1, right), all P < .05), and between the left SWD slope of activity level 3 and level 1 (β = -2.3 [3 versus 1, left], P < .05). The correlation between SWE velocity and SWD slope value changed with the position: there was a weak positive correlation in the prone position (r = 0.3 [left], 0.37 [right], both P < .05), and a moderate positive correlation in the standing and anterior flexed positions (r = 0.49-0.74, both P < .001). SFH was moderately negatively correlated with bilateral SWD slope values in the anterior flexion (left: r = -0.4, P = .01; right: r = -0.7, P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

SWD imaging can be used as an adjunct tool to aid in the assessment of viscosity in LMM. Further, activity level, and position are influencing factors that should be considered in clinical practice.