David Mercedes, Devantéry Karine, Nauche Bénédicte, Chagnon Miguel, Keezer Mark, Gaudreault Nathaly, Bureau Nathalie J, Cloutier Guy
Laboratory of Biorheology and Medical Ultrasonics, University of Montreal Hospital Research Center, Montreal, QC, H2L 2W5, Canada.
Institute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada.
Insights Imaging. 2024 Aug 14;15(1):206. doi: 10.1186/s13244-024-01785-7.
To report the current elastography methods used to quantify back muscles' biomechanical characteristics in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKd) and inform on their reliability, validity, and responsiveness.
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane library and grey literature were consulted. Predefined criteria allowed for study selection and data extraction. The quality of evidence was rated using the COSMIN tool. Data were meta-analyzed in terms of pooled intraclass correlation coefficient (pICC) for reliability and pooled standardized mean difference (pSMD) for validity and responsiveness. Heterogeneity was assessed.
Seventy-nine studies were included in the meta-analysis (total number of participants N = 3178). Three elastography methods were identified: strain imaging (SI; number of cohorts M = 26), shear wave imaging (SWI; M = 50), and vibration sonoelastography (VSE; M = 3). Strain imaging and SWI studies reported good reliability measurement properties (pICC > 0.70) and a medium pSMD (0.58 for SI and 0.60 for SWI; p ≤ 0.020) in discriminating MSKd from controls' condition (validity). Strain imaging studies reported a medium pSMD (0.64; p = 0.005) in detecting within-group changes over time, whereas SWI pSMD was very high (1.24; p = 0.005). Only SWI reported significant but small pSMD (0.30; p = 0.003) in detecting between-group changes over time. The small number of VSE studies could not be meta-analyzed. Heterogeneity was high (I-squared > 90%; p < 0.001).
Elastography presents good reliability results and a medium pSMD in discriminating MSKd from control conditions. Responsiveness data suggest detectable changes within groups over time using SI and SWI, calling for long-term longitudinal studies. Assessing changes between groups over time using elastography still needs to be proven. Highly significant heterogeneity limits meta-analytic results.
While still in its early-stage exploration phase, musculoskeletal ultrasound elastography may reliably quantify back muscles' biomechanics in asymptomatic individuals, moderately discriminate back musculoskeletal disorders and detect biomechanical changes over time in these conditions, calling for long-term longitudinal studies.
Ultrasound elastography is reviewed for back pain and related musculoskeletal disorder assessments. Growing literature supports good reproducibility, some validity and responsiveness. Back muscle elastography considers assumptions calling for standardized protocols.
报告目前用于量化肌肉骨骼疾病(MSKd)患者背部肌肉生物力学特征的弹性成像方法,并介绍其可靠性、有效性和反应性。
查阅了MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、Cochrane图书馆和灰色文献。预定义的标准用于研究选择和数据提取。使用COSMIN工具对证据质量进行评级。对数据进行荟萃分析,以合并组内相关系数(pICC)评估可靠性,以合并标准化均数差(pSMD)评估有效性和反应性。评估异质性。
79项研究纳入荟萃分析(参与者总数N = 3178)。确定了三种弹性成像方法:应变成像(SI;队列数M = 26)、剪切波成像(SWI;M = 50)和振动超声弹性成像(VSE;M = 3)。应变成像和SWI研究报告了良好的可靠性测量特性(pICC > 0.70),以及在区分MSKd与对照状态(有效性)方面的中等pSMD(SI为0.58,SWI为0.60;p≤0.020)。应变成像研究报告在检测组内随时间的变化方面有中等pSMD(0.64;p = 0.005),而SWI的pSMD非常高(1.24;p = 0.005)。只有SWI报告在检测组间随时间的变化方面有显著但较小的pSMD(0.30;p = 0.003)。VSE研究数量少,无法进行荟萃分析。异质性高(I²>90%;p < 0.001)。
弹性成像在区分MSKd与对照状态方面呈现出良好的可靠性结果和中等pSMD。反应性数据表明,使用SI和SWI可检测到组内随时间的变化,这需要进行长期纵向研究。使用弹性成像评估组间随时间的变化仍需得到证实。高度显著的异质性限制了荟萃分析结果。
虽然仍处于早期探索阶段,但肌肉骨骼超声弹性成像可能能够可靠地量化无症状个体的背部肌肉生物力学,适度区分背部肌肉骨骼疾病,并检测这些情况下随时间的生物力学变化,这需要进行长期纵向研究。
对超声弹性成像用于背痛和相关肌肉骨骼疾病评估进行了综述。越来越多的文献支持其良好的可重复性、一定的有效性和反应性。背部肌肉弹性成像考虑到一些假设,需要标准化方案。