Reliability of panoramic ultrasound in assessing rectus femoris size, shape, and brightness: an inter-examiner study
Extended field-of-view ultrasound (US) imaging, also known as panoramic US, represents a technical advance that allows for complete visualization of large musculoskeletal structures, which are often limited in conventional 2D US images. Currently, there is no evidence examining whether the experienc...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM) |
| Repositorio: | Docta Complutense |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/104410 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/104410 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | 616.74-073.43 Panoramic ultrasound Diagnostic accuracy Ultrasound imaging Quadriceps Fisioterapia (Enfermería, Fisioterapia y Podología) Sistema musculoesquelético Diagnóstico por imagen y medicina nuclear 3213.11 Fisioterapia 2411.10 Fisiología del Músculo 3201.11 Radiología |
| Resumo: | Extended field-of-view ultrasound (US) imaging, also known as panoramic US, represents a technical advance that allows for complete visualization of large musculoskeletal structures, which are often limited in conventional 2D US images. Currently, there is no evidence examining whether the experience of examiners influences muscle shape deformations that may arise during the glide of the transducer in panoramic US acquisition. As no studies using panoramic US have analyzed whether two examiners with differing levels of experience might obtain varying scores in size, shape, or brightness during the US assessment of the rectus femoris muscle, our aim was to analyze the inter-examiner reliability of panoramic US imaging acquisition in determining muscle size, shape, and brightness between two examiners. Additionally, we sought to investigate whether the examiners’ experience plays a significant role in muscle deformations during imaging acquisition by assessing score differences. Shape (circularity, aspect ratio, and roundness), size (cross-sectional area and perimeter), and brightness (mean echo intensity) were analyzed in 39 volunteers. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of measurements (SEM), minimal detectable changes (MDC), and coefficient of absolute errors (CAE%) were calculated. All parameters evaluated showed no significant differences between the two examiners (p > 0.05). Panoramic US proved to be reliable, regardless of examiner experience, as no deformations were observed. Further research is needed to corroborate the validity of panoramic US by comparing this method with gold standard techniques. |
|---|