Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Biceps Femoris Long-Head Architecture Assessed Using Different Sonographic Techniques.

PURPOSE: To assess the repeatability of, and measurement agreement between, four sonographic techniques used to quantify biceps femoris long head (BFlh) architecture: i) static-image with linear extrapolation technique; ii) extended field-of-view (EFOV) with linear ultrasound probe path (linear-EFOV) using either a straight or segmented analyses; and iii) EFOV with nonlinear probe path and segmented analysis (nonlinear-EFOV) to follow the complex fascicle trajectories.

METHODS: Twenty individuals (24.4±5.7 years; 175±0.8 cm; 73±9.0 kg) without history of hamstring strain injury were tested in two sessions separated by 1-hour. An ultrasound scanner coupled with 6-cm linear probe was used to assess BFlh architecture in B-mode.

RESULTS: The ultrasound probe was positioned at 52.0±5.0% of femur length and 57.0±6.0% of BFlh length. We found an acceptable repeatability when assessing BFlh fascicle length (ICC3,k = 0.86-0.95; SEM = 1.9-3.2 mm) and angle (ICC3,k = 0.86-0.97; SEM = 0.8-1.1) using all sonographic techniques. However, the nonlinear-EFOV technique showed the highest repeatability (fascicle length ICC3,k = 0.95; fascicle angle, ICC3,k = 0.97). The static-image technique, which estimated 35.4±7.0% of the fascicle length, overestimated fascicle length (8-11%) and underestimated fascicle angle (8-9%) compared to EFOV techniques. Also, the rank order of individuals varied by ~15% between static-image and nonlinear-EFOV (segmented) when assessing the fascicle length.

CONCLUSIONS: Although all techniques showed good repeatability, absolute errors were observed using static-image (7.9±6.1 mm for fascicle length) and linear-EFOV (between 3.7±3.0 and 4.2±3.7 mm), probably because the complex fascicle trajectories were not followed. The rank order of individuals for fascicle length and angle were also different between static-image and nonlinear-EFOV, so different muscle function and injury risk estimates could likely be made when using this technique.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app