JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Comparison of Ultrasound Images on Trunk Muscles According to Gender
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
The Comparison of Ultrasound Images on Trunk Muscles According to Gender
Lim, Jae-Heon; Choi, Su-Hee; Seo, Sam-Ki;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare ultrasound images of trunk muscles according to gender in healthy subjects. METHODS: Twenty six subjects(13 males and 13 females) were enrolled in this study. The thickness of trunk muscles was measured for transverse abdominis (TrA), external oblique abdominis (EOA), internal oblique abdominis (IOA), and multifidus (MF) using ultrasound. The thickness of the muscles was measured for the length of cross-section except for fascia. The muscle thickness wasmeasured at the both side, then the mean value was calculated. Also, each of trunk muscle wasanalysed by echodensity, white area index. RESULTS: As a results, there was significant difference in muscle thickness of EOA, IOA according to gender (p<0.05). The male was significant increase than female of EOA, IOA in muscle thickness. There was significant difference in echo intensity of TrA, MF according to gender(p<0.05). The female was significant increase than male of TrA, MF in echo intensity. There was significant difference in white area index of EOA according to gender(p<0.05). The female was significant increase than male of EOA in white area index. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that healthy male have a greater EOA, IOA trunk muscle thickness than female. However, the difference of muscle quality between male and female was showed through thisexperiment. Therefore, the ultrasonography images will be useful tool for seeing quantitative and qualitative difference of trunk muscles according to gender.
 Keywords
Ultrasonography;Muscle thickness;Echodensity;White area index;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Aydinli N, Baslo B, Caliskan M, et al. Muscle ultrasonography and electromyography correlation for evaluation of floppy infants. Brain Dev. 2003;25(1):22-4. crossref(new window)

2.
Braekken IH, Majida M, Engh ME, et al. Morphological changes after pelvic floor muscle training measured by 3-dimensional ultrasonography: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(2 Pt 1):317-24. crossref(new window)

3.
Brockmann K, Becker P, Schreiber G, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of qualitative muscle ultrasound in assessment of suspected neuromuscular disease in childhood. Neuromuscul Disord. 2007;17(7):517-23. crossref(new window)

4.
Chen G, Liu L, Yu J. A comparative study on strength between Americancollege male and female students in caucasian and asianpopulations. Sport Science Review. 2012;21(3-4):153-65.

5.
Chi-Fishman G, Hicks JE, Cintas HM, et al. Ultrasound imaging distinguishes between normal and weak muscle. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(6):980-6. crossref(new window)

6.
Emshoff R, Bertram S, Trobl H. Ultrasonographic crosssectional characteristics of muscles of the head and neck. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;87(1):93-106. crossref(new window)

7.
Enright SJ, Unnithan VB, Heward C, et al. Effect of high-intensity inspiratory muscle training on lung volumes, diaphragm thickness, and exercise capacity in subjects who are healthy. Phys Ther. 2006;86(3):345-54.

8.
Hansen FR, Bendix T, Skov P, et al. Intensive, dynamic back-muscle exercises, conventional physiotherapy, or placebo-control treatment of low-back pain. A randomized, observer-blind trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993;18(1):98-108. crossref(new window)

9.
Harcke HT, Grissom LE, Finkelstein MS. Evaluation of the musculoskeletal system with sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;150(6):1253-61. crossref(new window)

10.
Heckmatt JZ, Leeman S, Dubowitz V. Ultrasound imaging in the diagnosis of muscle disease. J Pediatr. 1982;101(5):656-60. crossref(new window)

11.
Hides JA, Richardson CA, Jull GA. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography of the lumbar multifidus muscle.Comparison of two different modalities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(1):54-8. crossref(new window)

12.
Hodges PW. Is there a role for transverses abdominis in lumbo-pelvic stability? Man Ther. 1999;4(2):74-86. crossref(new window)

13.
Jeong JG, Kim KY, Kim JM, et al. Age related analysis of ultrasound images of normal skeletal muscle. Phys Ther Korea. 2006;13(1):47-53.

14.
Lee JW, Seo SK, Yoon SW, et al. The architecture characteristics of ultrasonography on the skeletal muscle by gender in normal subject. Journal of coaching development. 2007;9(2):259-67.

15.
Maurits NM, Bollen AE, WindhausenbA, et al. Muscle ultrasound analysis: normal values and differentiation between myopathies and neuropathies. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003;29(2):215-25. crossref(new window)

16.
Miller JA, Schmatz C, Chultz AB. Lumbar disc degeneration:correlation with age, sex, and spine level in 600 autopsy specimens. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988;13(2):173-8. crossref(new window)

17.
Misuri G, Colagrande S, Gorini M, et al. In vivo ultrasound assessment of respiratory function of abdominal muscles in normal subjects. EurRespir J. 1997;10(12):2861-7.

18.
Ota M, Ikezoe T, Kaneoka K, et al. Age-related changes in the thickness of the deep and superficial abdominal muscles in women. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012;55(2):e26-30. crossref(new window)

19.
Pillen S, Arts IM, Zwarts MJ. Muscle ultrasound in neuromuscular disorders. Muscle Nerve. 2008;37(6):679-93. crossref(new window)

20.
Pillen S, van Alfen N. Skeletal muscle ultrasound. Neurol Res. 2011;33(10):1016-24. crossref(new window)

21.
Rankin G, Stokes M, Newham DJ. Abdominal muscle size and symmetry in normal subjects. Muscle Nerve. 2006;34(3):320-6. crossref(new window)

22.
Rankin G, Stokes M, Newham DJ. Size and shape of the posterior neck muscles measured by ultrasound imaging: normal values in males and females of different ages. Man Ther. 2005;10(2):108-15. crossref(new window)

23.
Reeves ND, Maganaris CN, Narici MV. Ultrasonographic assessment of human skeletal muscle size. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004;91(1):116-8. crossref(new window)

24.
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(1):60-6. crossref(new window)

25.
Rezasoltani A, Ylinen J, Vihko V. Isometric cervical extension force and dimensions of semispinaliscapitis muscle. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002;39(3):423-8.

26.
Sanada K, Kearns CF, Midorikawa T, et al. Prediction and validation of total and regional skeletal muscle mass by ultrasound in Japanese adults. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;96(1):24-31. crossref(new window)

27.
Song WR, Kim SY, Jang HJ. A comparison of change in thickness for lower trapezius muscle during lower trapezius muscle isometric exercise and reliability of ultrasound imaging. Phys Ther Korea. 2012;19(3):31-9. crossref(new window)

28.
Springer BA, Mielcarek BJ, Nesfield TK, et al. Relationships among lateral abdominal muscles, gender, body mass index, and hand dominance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(5):289-97. crossref(new window)

29.
Sung KH, Kim MJ, Sok HK. The effect of progressive resistance exercise between laser discectomy and non-op group in HIVD for 12wks. Korean J Sports Med. 1999;17(1):165-75.

30.
Vasseljen O, Dahl HH, Mork PJ, et al. Muscle activity onset in the lumbar multifidus muscle recorded simultaneously by ultrasound imaging and intramuscular electromyography. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006;21(9):905-13. crossref(new window)