4.6 Article

Ultrasound Elastography: The New Frontier in Direct Measurement of Muscle Stiffness

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.07.007

关键词

Diagnostic imaging; Elasticity; Hardness; Muscles; Rehabilitation; Ultrasonography

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [KL2TR000136-07]
  2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  3. National Institutes of Health through National Institute on Aging [F30 AG044075]
  4. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [T32 GM 65841]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of brightness-mode ultrasound and Doppler ultrasound in physical medicine and rehabilitation has increased dramatically. The continuing evolution of ultrasound technology has also produced ultrasound elastography, a cutting-edge technology that can directly measure the mechanical properties of tissue, including muscle stiffness. Its real-time and direct measurements of muscle stiffness can aid the diagnosis and rehabilitation of acute musculoskeletal injuries and chronic myofascial pain. It can also help monitor outcomes of interventions affecting muscle in neuromuscular and musculoskeletal diseases, and it can better inform the functional prognosis. This technology has implications for even broader use of ultrasound in physical medicine and rehabilitation practice, but more knowledge about its uses and limitations is essential to its appropriate clinical implementation. In this review, we describe different ultrasound elastography techniques for studying muscle stiffness, including strain elastography, acoustic radiation force impulse imaging, and shear-wave elastography. We discuss the basic principles of these techniques, including the strengths and limitations of their measurement capabilities. We review the current muscle research, discuss physiatric clinical applications of these techniques, and note directions for future research. (C) 2014 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据