Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Joints 2018; 06(02): 116-121
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1660814
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Can Elastosonography Be Useful in Improving Diagnosis and Prognosis of Acute Muscle Injuries?

Marco Cianforlini
1   Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, School of Medicine, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
,
Serena Ulisse
2   Department of Radiological Sciences, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
,
Valentino Coppa
1   Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, School of Medicine, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
,
Marco Grassi
1   Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, School of Medicine, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
,
Marco Rotini
1   Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, School of Medicine, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
,
Antonio Gigante
1   Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, School of Medicine, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

05 September 2017

07 May 2018

Publication Date:
22 June 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose The objective of this study was to investigate the ability of elastosonography (USE) in the identification of different grades of muscular injuries, comparing its effectiveness with traditional ultrasound (US) survey and by relating the results to the clinical classification of muscular pain.

Methods In the period between August 2014 and May 2016, we conducted a prospective cohort study on a population of 34 young male professional athletes belonging to the same under-17 football club (Ancona 1905). Injuries were recorded according to location, type, mechanism, recurrence, and whether they occurred with or without contact. Muscle pain was classified, after a physical examination, according to the classification of Mueller-Wohlfahrt et al. All athletes were evaluated by musculoskeletal US and USE in hours following the trauma/onset of pain.

Results Seventy injuries were documented among 19 players. Muscle/tendon injuries were the most common type of injury (49%). USE showed areas of edema in nine lesions that were negative at the US examination and previously classified as fatigue-induced muscle disorders. These nine players took more time to return to physical activity compared with others with injuries classified into the same group, but negative at USE evaluation.

Conclusion USE is a valuable aid in the diagnosis and prognostic evaluation of muscle injury, as it detects pathologic changes that are not visible with the B-mode US.

Level of Evidence This is a Level III, observational cohort study.

Keywords

football - muscle injuries - muscle pain - ultrasound - elastosonography
 

  • References

  • 1 Menetrey J, Kasemkijwattana C, Day CS. , et al. Growth factors improve muscle healing in vivo. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000; 82 (01) 131-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Järvinen TA, Järvinen TL, Kääriäinen M. , et al. Muscle injuries: optimising recovery. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2007; 21 (02) 317-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Järvinen TA, Järvinen TL, Kääriäinen M, Kalimo H, Järvinen M. Muscle injuries: biology and treatment. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (05) 745-764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Dubowitz V. Muscle Biopsy: A Practical Approach, 2nd ed. Cap 5 129–181. London, Toronto: W. B. Saunders; 1985
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Gigante A, Cianforlini M, Manzotti S, Ulisse S. The effects of growth factors on skeletal muscle lesions. Joints 2014; 1 (04) 180-186
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Järvinen TA, Järvinen TL, Kääriäinen M. , et al. Muscle injuries: optimising recovery. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2007; 21 (02) 317-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Niitsu M, Michizaki A, Endo A, Takei H, Yanagisawa O. Muscle hardness measurement by using ultrasound elastography: a feasibility study. Acta Radiol 2011; 52 (01) 99-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mueller-Wohlfahrt HW, Haensel L, Mithoefer K. , et al. Terminology and classification of muscle injuries in sport: the Munich consensus statement. Br J Sports Med 2013; 47 (06) 342-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Maffulli N, Del Buono A, Oliva F. , et al. Muscle injuries: a brief guide to classification and management. Transl Med UniSa 2014; 12: 14-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ekstrand J, Healy JC, Waldén M, Lee JC, English B, Hägglund M. Hamstring muscle injuries in professional football: the correlation of MRI findings with return to play. Br J Sports Med 2012; 46 (02) 112-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kuyala UM, Orava S, Jarvinen M. Hamstring injuries. Current trends in treatment and prevention. Sport Med 1997; 23 (06) 397-404
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cianforlini M, Mattioli-Belmonte M, Manzotti S. , et al. Effect of platelet rich plasma concentration on skeletal muscle regeneration: an experimental study. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2015; 29 (4, Suppl): 47-55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Peetrons P. Ultrasound of muscles. Eur Radiol 2002; 12 (01) 35-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ekstrand J, Askling C, Magnusson H, Mithoefer K. Return to play after thigh muscle injury in elite football players: implementation and validation of the Munich muscle injury classification. Br J Sports Med 2013; 47 (12) 769-774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Monetti G, Rampino G, Rusignuolo G. Ultrasound of muscle and tendon pathology. In: Canata GL, d'Hooghe P, Hunt KJ. , eds. Muscle and Tendon Injuries. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2017: 75-86
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kneeland JP. MR imaging of muscle and tendon injury. Eur J Radiol 1997; 25 (03) 198-208
    PubMedGoogle Scholar