• David R Schieffelers, Dorien Dombrecht, Cynthia Lafaire, Lieve De Cuyper, Thomas Rose, Jill Meirte, Nick Gebruers, Eric van Breda, and Ulrike Van Daele.
• Multidisciplinary Metabolic Research Unit (M2RUN), MOVANT Research Group, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium. Electronic address: david.schieffelers@gmail.com.
• Burns. 2023 Feb 1; 49 (1): 687968-79.

ObjectivesDespite the impact of muscle wasting after burn, tools to quantify muscle wasting are lacking. This multi-centre study examined the utility of ultrasound to measure muscle mass in acute burn patients comparing different methodologies.MethodsB-mode ultrasound was used by two raters to determine feasibility and inter-rater reliability in twenty burned adults following admission. Quadriceps muscle layer thickness (QMLT) and rectus femoris cross-sectional area (RF-CSA) were measured, comparing the use of i) a single versus average measurements, ii) a proximal versus distal location for QMLT, and iii) a maximum- versus no-compression technique for QMLT.ResultsAnalysis of twenty burned adults (50 years [95%CI 42-57], 32%TBSA [95%CI 23-40]) yielded ICCs of> 0.97 for QMLT (for either location and compression technique) and> 0.95 for RF-CSA, using average measurements. Relative minimal detectable changes were smaller using no-compression than maximum-compression (6.5% vs. 15%). Using no-compression to measure QMLT was deemed feasible for both proximal and distal locations (94% and 96% of attempted measurements). In 9.5% of cases maximum-compression was not feasible. 95% of RF-CSA measurements were successfully completed.ConclusionUltrasound provides feasible and reliable values of quadriceps muscle architecture that can be adapted to clinical scenarios commonly encountered in acute burn settings.Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

19 keywords...

hide…