4.5 Article

Effect of Exercise Intervention on Thigh Muscle Volume and Anatomical Cross-Sectional Areas-Quantitative Assessment Using MRI

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 64, Issue 6, Pages 1713-1720

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.22550

Keywords

MRI; muscle; volume; cross-sectional area; training

Funding

  1. PMU Forschungsfond

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to evaluate the location-specific magnitudes of an exercise intervention on thigh muscle volume and anatomical cross-sectional area, using MRI. Forty one untrained women participated in strength, endurance, or autogenic training for 12 weeks. Axial MR images of the thigh were acquired before and after the intervention, using a T1-weighted turbo-spin-echo sequence (10 mm sections, 0.78 mm in-plane resolution). The extensor, flexor, adductor, and sartorius muscles were segmented between the femoral neck and the rectus femoris tendon. Muscle volumes were determined, and anatomical cross-sectional areas were derived from 3D reconstructions at 10% (proximal-to-distal) intervals. With strength training, the volume of the extensors (+3.1%), flexors (+3.5%), and adductors (+3.9%) increased significantly (P < 0.05) between baseline and follow-up, and with endurance training, the volume of the extensor (+3.7%) and sartorius (+5.1%) increased significantly (P < 0.05). No relevant or statistically significant change was observed with autogenic training. The greatest standardized response means were observed for the anatomical cross-sectional area in the proximal aspect (10-30%) of the thigh and generally exceeded those for muscle volumes. The study shows that MRI can be used to monitor location-specific effects of exercise intervention on muscle cross-sectional areas, with the proximal aspect of the thigh muscles being most responsive. Magn Reson Med 64:1713-1720, 2010. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available