Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging and skeletal muscle disease

  • Published:
Current Rheumatology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Imaging techniques have assumed increasing importance in the diagnostic approach to patients with muscle disease. These techniques include computed tomography, ultra-sound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). For most disorders of muscle, ultrasound and MRI are more useful than computed tomography. Advantages of ultrasound include accessibility at the bedside and lower cost. However, MRI remains the gold standard for detecting changes in muscle tissue. In some cases, MRI examinations can take the place of muscle biopsy for diagnosis. New advances in MRI include diffusion-weighted imaging, which permits assessment of fluid motion in muscles, and blood-oxygen-level-dependent imaging to evaluate tissue oxygenation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Peetrons P: Ultrasound of muscles. Eur Radiol 2002, 12:35–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Scott DL: Imaging in muscle disease. In Imaging in Rheu-matology, edn First. Edited by Isenberg DA. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003:188–212.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Park JH, Olsen NJ: Skeletal muscle imaging for the evalua-tion of myopathies. In Diseases of Skeletal Muscle. Edited by Wortmann, R.L. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002:293–312.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jacobson JA: Ultrasound in sports medicine. Radiol Clin North Am 2002, 40:363–386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Park JH, Qi J, Winston J, Olsen N: Diffusion and perfusion in the thigh muscles of myositis patients [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2004, 50:S102.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kane D, Grassi W, Sturrock R, Balint PV: Musculoskeletal ultrasound--a state of the art review in rheumatology. Part 2: clinical indications for musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004, 43:829–838.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Boutin RD, Brossmann J, Sartoris DJ, et al.: Update on imaging of orthopedic infections. Orthop Clin North Am 1998, 29:41–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Karabiber H, Aslan M, Alkan A, Yakinci C: A rare complication of generalized edema in juvenile dermatomyositis: a report of one case. Brain Dev 2004, 26:269–272.Generalized edema in JDM may obscure some of the other muscle features. These authors show how MRI can be useful to distinguish involvement of subcutaneous tissues as well as muscle, and suggest that MRI features be included in revised diagnostic criteria for this disease.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lentine KL, Guest SS: Diabetic muscle infarction in end-stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004, 19:664–669.This paper reviews the relatively unusual manifestation of diabetic muscle infarcts and points out the utility of the noninvasive MRI approach, which usually abrogates the need for invasive biopsies.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Carvounis PE, Mehta AP, Geist CE: Orbital myositis associated with Borrelia burgdorferi (Lyme disease) infection. Ophthalmology 2004, 111:1023–1028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kane D, Balint PV, Sturrock R, Grassi W: Musculoskeletal ultrasound--a state of the art review in rheumatology. Part 1: current controversies and issues in the development of musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004, 43:823–828.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kane D, Grassi W, Sturrock R, Balint PV:A brief history of musculoskeletal ultrasound: ‘from bats and ships to babies and hips’. Rheumatology(Oxford) 2004, 43:931–933.These authors present an interesting historic perspective, pointing out that the first published report using musculoskeletal ultrasound was in 1958.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Brown AK, O’Connor PJ, Wakefield RJ, et al.: Practice, training, and assessment among experts performing musculoskeletal ultrasonography: toward the development of an international consensus of educational standards for ultrasonography for rheumatologists. Arthritis Rheum 2004, 51:1018–1022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wakefield RJ, Brown AK, O’Connor PJ, et al.: Musculoskeletal ultrasonography: what is it and should training be compulsory for rheumatologists? Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004, 43:821–822.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Maurits NM, Beenakker EA, van Schaik DE, et al.: Muscle ultrasound in children: normal values and application to neuromuscular disorders. Ultrasound Med Biol 2004, 30:1017–1027.The authors convincingly demonstrate the quantitative aspects of muscle ultrasound that can be useful to distinguish pathologic conditions in children.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Maurits NM, Bollen AE, Windhausen A, et al.: Muscle ultrasound analysis: normal values and differentiation between myopathies and neuropathies. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003, 29:215–225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Callaghan MJ, Oldham JA: Quadriceps atrophy: to what extent does it exist in patellofemoral pain syndrome? Br J Sports Med 2004, 38:295–299.The high level of detail in muscle images that can be achieved by ultrasound are clearly documented in this study.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mittal GA, Wadhwani R, Shroff M, et al.: Ultrasonography in the diagnosis and follow-up of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies--a preliminary study. J Assoc Physicians India 2003, 51:252–256.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Reimers CD, Fleckenstein JL, Witt TN, et al.: Muscular ultrasound in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies of adults. J Neurol Sci 1993, 116:82–92.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Chi-Fishman G, Hicks JE, Cintas HM, et al.: Ultrasound imaging distinguishes between normal and weak muscle. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004, 85:980–986.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Liang HD, Lu QL, Xue SA, et al.: Optimization of ultrasoundmediated gene transfer (sonoporation) in skeletal muscle cells. Ultrasound Med Biol 2004, 30:1523–1529.These in vitro studies suggest that ultrasound might become useful for the introduction of DNA to correct genetic defects in muscle diseases.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Garcia J: MRI in inflammatory myopathies. Skeletal Radiol 2000, 29:425–438.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Park JH, Vital TL, Ryder NM, et al.:Magnetic resonance imaging and P-31 magnetic resonance spectroscopy provide unique quantitative data useful in the longitudinal management of patients with dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum 1994, 37:736–746.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lovitt S, Marden FA, Gundogdu B, Ostrowski ML: MRI in myopathy. Neurol Clin 2004, 22:509–38, v.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Park JH, Niermann KJ, Ryder NM, et al.: Muscle abnormalities in juvenile dermatomyositis patients: P-31 magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies. Arthritis Rheum 2000, 43:2359–2367.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Summers RM, Brune AM, Choyke PL, et al.: Juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathy: exercise-induced changes in muscle at short inversion time inversion-recovery MR imaging. Radiology 1998, 209:191–196.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Maillard SM, Jones R, Owens C, et al.: Quantitative assessment of MRI T2 relaxation time of thigh muscles in juvenile dermatomyositis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004, 43:603–608.These studies in JDM suggest that MRI measures are more reliable indicators of disease activity than serum levels of muscle enzymes.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Tuoheti Y, Okada K, Osanai T, et al.: Skeletal muscle metastases of carcinoma: a clinicopathological study of 12 cases. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2004, 34:210–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pichiecchio A, Uggetti C, Ravaglia S, et al.: Muscle MRI in adult-onset acid maltase deficiency. Neuromuscul Disord 2004, 14:51–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Park JH, Niermann KJ, Ryder NM, et al.: Muscle abnormalities in juvenile dermatomyositis patients: P-31 magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies. Arthritis Rheum 2000, 43:2359–2367.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Qi J, Olsen NJ, Park JH: Correlations of MRI and P31 MRS data with clinical parameters: juvenile dermatomyositis [abstract]. Proc Int Soc Mag Reson Med 2005, 11:796.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Studynkova JT, Kuchen S, Jeisy E, et al.: The expression of cyclooxygenase-1, cyclooxygenase-2 and 5-lipoxygenase in inflammatory muscle tissue of patients with polymyositis and dermatomyositis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2004, 22:395–402.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ruiz-Cabello J, Regadera J, Santisteban C, et al.: Monitoring acute inflammatory processes in mouse muscle by MR imaging and spectroscopy: a comparison with pathological results. NMR Biomed 2002, 15:204–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. van der Meulen MF, Bronner IM, Hoogendijk JE, et al.: Polymyositis: an overdiagnosed entity. Neurology 2003, 61:316–321.The authors make a case for revising the diagnostic criteria for inflammatory muscle disease.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dion E, Cherin P, Payan C, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging criteria for distinguishing between inclusion body myositis and polymyositis. J Rheumatol 2002, 29:1897–1906.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Morvan D, Leroy-Willig A: Simultaneous measurements of diffusion and transverse relaxation in exercising skeletal muscle. Magn Reson Imaging 1995, 13:943–948.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Park JH, Qi J, Price RR, Olsen NJ: Diffusion-weighted imaging for evaluation of muscle diseases: dermatomyositis and polymyositis [abstract]. Proc Int Soc Magnetic Reson Med 2003, 11:118.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Basser PJ, Mattiello J, LeBihan D: MR diffusion tensor spectroscopy and imaging. Biophys J 1994, 66:259–267.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Damon BM, Ding Z, Anderson AW, et al.: Validation of diffusion tensor MRI-based muscle fiber tracking. Magn Reson Med 2002, 48:97–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ogawa S, Lee TM, Kay AR, Tank DW: Brain magnetic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990, 87:9868–9872.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Noseworthy MD, Bulte DP, Alfonsi J: BOLD magnetic resonance imaging of skeletal muscle. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2003, 7:307–315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Rheumatic Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., 75390, Dallas, TX, USA

    Nancy J. Olsen MD

Authors
  1. Nancy J. Olsen MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jing Qi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jane H. Park PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olsen, N.J., Qi, J. & Park, J.H. Imaging and skeletal muscle disease. Curr Rheumatol Rep 7, 106–114 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-005-0062-3

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-005-0062-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation