Ultrasound in the evaluation of the inflammatory myopathies.
The lack of precise measures of disease activity may complicate the care of patients with inflammatory myopathies (IM). Techniques currently available to physicians in practice rely on measurement of function, strength, laboratory indices, muscle biopsy, and imaging techniques. Although MRI has become the method of choice to assess IM, it is expensive, difficult for some patients to tolerate, and contraindicated in those with pacemakers, aneurysm clips, and other ferromagnetic biomedical implants. Ultrasonography is an alternative approach to image the muscular system. Newer applications of ultrasound, such as power Doppler sonography (PDS), contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and sonoelastography, show some promising results in further characterizing normal and pathologic states. Technical improvements, including extended field-of-view, compound imaging, and harmonic imaging, further enhance one's ability to display changes in muscle morphology. This article reviews the sonographic appearances of normal and pathologic muscle with respect to inflammatory myopathies.
Adler
Ronald S
RS
Division of Ultrasound and Body Imaging, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY 10021, USA. adlerr@hss.edu
Garofalo
Giovanna
G
D004487:Edema / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D006801:Humans; D018482:Muscle, Skeletal / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D009220:Myositis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D018615:Ultrasonography, Doppler, Color
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009 Mar;35(3):443-6
19081667
J Ultrasound Med. 1997 Dec;16(12):831-42
9401998
Ultrason Imaging. 1993 Apr;15(2):73-88
8346612
Medicine (Baltimore). 1977 Jul;56(4):255-86
327194
J Rheumatol. 1993 Jul;20(7):1105-7
8371200
J Ultrasound Med. 2004 Aug;23(8):1031-4
15284460
Radiology. 2006 Feb;238(2):640-9
16371585
Muscle Nerve. 2008 Jun;37(6):679-93
18506712
J Biomech. 1995 Oct;28(10):1145-54
8550633
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2007 Jun;11(2):192-8
18095250
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Jun;168(6):1525-30
9168718
J Biomech. 2005 Jul;38(7):1543-50
15922766
Ultrasound Q. 2005 Jun;21(2):87-94; quiz 150, 153-4
15905818
J Rheumatol. 1995 Mar;22(3):473-7
7783064
Skeletal Radiol. 2008 Jan;37(1):43-8
17962939
J Biomech. 2009 Mar 11;42(4):537-40
19171346
Ultrasound Q. 2003 Mar;19(1):27-37
12970614
Radiology. 1994 Mar;190(3):853-6
8115639
Am J Hum Biol. 2006 Nov-Dec;18(6):845-8
17039483
Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Feb;17(2):183-91
10215472
J Rheumatol. 2001 Jun;28(6):1271-82
11409119
J Rheumatol. 1991 Nov;18(11):1693-700
1787491
Ann Rheum Dis. 1987 Aug;46(8):569-72
3662649
APMIS. 2005 May;113(5):353-60
16011662
Radiol Clin North Am. 1996 Mar;34(2):427-39, xii
8633124
Radiology. 1997 Jun;203(3):877-80
9169720
J Ultrasound Med. 1989 Aug;8(8):463-6
2668559
J Neurol Sci. 1993 May;116(1):82-92
8509807
Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2001 Feb;22(1):1-10
11300583
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Dec;179(6):1629-31
12438067
Arch Dermatol. 1994 Oct;130(10):1294-9
7944512
J Ultrasound Med. 2006 Jan;25(1):1-6
16371549
J Neurol. 2006 Dec;253(12):1625-32
17219033
Radiology. 1990 Nov;177(2):473-9
2217788
Radiology. 1995 Oct;197(1):183-90
7568820
South Med J. 1998 Jan;91(1):17-22
9438396
Clin Physiol. 1985 Apr;5(2):145-54
3888498
Skeletal Radiol. 2006 Feb;35(2):113-6
16205923