Clinical Interventions in Aging (Dec 2022)
The Muscle Thickness Assessment Using Ultrasonography is a Useful Alternative to Skeletal Muscle Mass by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis
Abstract
Masaaki Isaka,1– 3 Ken Sugimoto,1,4 Hiroshi Akasaka,1 Yukiko Yasunobe,1 Toshimasa Takahashi,1 Keyu Xie,1 Yuri Onishi,1 Shino Yoshida,1 Tomohiro Minami,1 Koichi Yamamoto,1 Kei Kamide,1,2 Hiromi Rakugi1 1Department of Geriatric and General Medicine, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan; 2Department of Health Science, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan; 3Physical Therapy, Osaka Yukioka College of Health Science, Ibaraki, Osaka, Japan; 4Department of General Geriatric Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School, Okayama, Okayama, JapanCorrespondence: Ken Sugimoto, Department of General Geriatric Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School, 2-6-1, Nakasange, Kita-ku, Okayama, Okayama, 700-8505, Japan, Tel +81 86 225 2111, Fax +81 86 232 8343, Email [email protected]: Muscle mass, a key index for the diagnosis of sarcopenia, is currently assessed using the appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Muscle thickness (MT) assessed by ultrasonography (US) may be a better determinant and/or predictor of muscle condition than ASMI. Thus, we compared it to the ASMI determined by the BIA.Patients and Methods: Our study included 165 ambulatory older adults (84 males, 81 females, mean age: 76.82 years). The ASMI by the BIA method, MT by US, and the distribution of body mass index (BMI) and body fat percentage (BFP) were examined using defined values for men and women. These were used as the basis for examining the association of MT and ASMI with handgrip strength (HGS), leg muscle strength (LMS), gait speed (GS), and echo intensity (EI). We compared HGS, LMS, GS, and EI for high and low ASMI among lower BMI or BFP. The same was also done for MT assessed by US.Results: MT, as well as ASMI, was strongly associated with HGS and LMS. There was a correlation between MT and GS and EI but not between ASMI and GS and EI. There were significant differences in the prevalence between high ASMI and high MT or low ASMI and low MT in those with lower BMI or BFP. In non-overweight participants, HGS, LMS, GS, and EI were significantly higher in those with high MT than in those with low MT; however, there were no significant differences in them between those with high and low ASMI.Conclusion: In the non-overweight group, the MT assessment by US showed a stronger relationship to muscle strength and muscle quality than the ASMI assessment by BIA. The MT assessment using US is a useful alternative to BIA-assessed ASMI, especially in non-overweight participants.Keywords: tibialis anterior muscle, muscle thickness, echo intensity, body type, muscle strength
