
==== Front
Eur Geriatr Med
Eur Geriatr Med
European Geriatric Medicine
1878-7649
1878-7657
Springer International Publishing Cham

39031330
1021
10.1007/s41999-024-01021-x
Research Paper
Comparative analysis of hand-held and stationary ultrasound for detection of sarcopenia in acutely hospitalised older adults—a validity and reliability study
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7980-8931
Phillip Jeppe Grabov 134
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6179-5183
Minet Lisbeth Rosenbek 234
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2642-9019
Smedemark Siri Aas 234
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8641-3062
Ryg Jesper 234
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1970-7076
Andersen-Ranberg Karen 234
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3621-5463
Brockhattingen Kristoffer Kittelmann Kristoffer.k.brockhattingen@rsyd.dk

234
1 https://ror.org/00ey0ed83 grid.7143.1 0000 0004 0512 5013 Department of Geriatric Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Svendborg, Denmark
2 https://ror.org/00ey0ed83 grid.7143.1 0000 0004 0512 5013 Department of Geriatric Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
3 https://ror.org/03yrrjy16 grid.10825.3e 0000 0001 0728 0170 Geriatric Research Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
4 https://ror.org/03yrrjy16 grid.10825.3e 0000 0001 0728 0170 Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
20 7 2024
20 7 2024
2024
15 4 10171022
7 5 2024
8 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Key summary points

Aim

To compare hand-held ultrasound (HH-US) to stationary ultrasound (S-US) in muscle assessment for detection of sarcopenia in acutely hospitalised older adults.

Findings

Rater 1 had ‘substantial’ agreement between HH-US and S-US (κ = 0.77), whereas Rater 2 had ‘almost perfect’ agreement (κ = 0.92). Finally, no significant differences were seen on any US variables among the two raters when comparing the results from both HH-US and S-US.

Message

HH-US scanners could be feasible, valid, and reliable for detection of loss of muscle mass associated with sarcopenia in acutely admitted older patients, in the hands of an experienced examiner.

Background and purpose

Sarcopenia is a growing health concern among geriatric patients. Early diagnostics is importance to intervene and better muscle status and thus physical function. Ultrasound can be a valuable tool for patient-near diagnostics of sarcopenia. In recent time, ultrasound devices have evolved from larger stationary devices to minor hand-held devices that are more portable. However, the literature lacks research comparing quality of the different devices. The purpose of this study was to compare hand-held ultrasound (HH-US) to stationary ultrasound (S-US) in muscle assessment for detection of sarcopenia in acutely hospitalized older adults.

Methods

A cross-sectional study using a convenience sample of acutely admitted older patients examined with both HH-US and S-US within a single session by the same examiner. Image analysis was performed using ImageJ, and was conducted by two raters: Rater 2 an experienced US examiner and Rater 1 an US examiner who received training from Rater 2. The Ultrasound sarcopenia index (USI) was used for evaluating sarcopenia. Validity and reliability of HH-US were analyzed using Cohen’s Kappa and Student’s t-test.

Results

21 participants (mean age 83.4 years, 52% female). Results showed “substantial” intra-rater reliability (κ = 0.77 for Rater 1) and ‘near-perfect’ validity (κ = 0.92 for Rater 2). Inter-rater comparisons revealed no significant differences (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

HH-US is a potential method for detection of sarcopenia in acutely hospitalized older adults.

Keywords

Geriatric
Muscle assessment
Ultrasonography
Hand-held ultrasound
Older adults
Sarcopenia
Odense University HospitalOpen access funding provided by Odense University Hospital

issue-copyright-statement© European Geriatric Medicine Society 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Sarcopenia is an escalating health concern with implications for mobility, independence, risk of falls, heightened healthcare costs, increased risk of hospitalization, and increased mortality [1]. The aging process induces structural changes in skeletal muscle, predisposing individuals to sarcopenia, as do other prevalent factors among older adults, such as diseases, physical inactivity, and malnutrition [1].

Early disease detection is paramount for timely intervention and healthcare resource allocation. Current methods for diagnosing sarcopenia, such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), bioimpedance analysis (BIA), CT, and MRI, are hindered by high costs, being stationary, and the need for specialized personnel [2], besides needing transportation of the patient. B-mode Ultrasonography (US) emerges as a promising tool for assessing skeletal muscle quantity and quality [3, 4]. This technique is valid, reliable, cost-effective, and easily accessible, particularly in geriatric settings [5, 6]. To date, the majority of clinical ultrasound scanners are stationary (S-US), limiting their application in dynamic healthcare settings. The advent of hand-held ultrasound scanners (HH-US), bypass these limitations, particularly in settings with older immobile populations, due to good portability, affordability, and ease of use. While previous studies have explored the feasibility of HH-US in clinical practice [8, 9], studies are lacking on the validity and reliability in exploring sarcopenia in high-risk populations such as acutely hospitalized older adults. Furthermore, the recent published ultrasound sarcopenia index for muscle wasting (USI) enables stratification of individuals according to muscle status into the following conditions: non-sarcopenic, pre-sarcopenic, moderately sarcopenic, sarcopenic, and severely sarcopenic [7]. Therefore, the aim of this study is to describe the validity and reliability of HH-US for muscle assessment by the USI in acutely hospitalized older adults, when compared to S-US.

Materials and methods

Study design and settings

We made a single-center cross-sectional study at the Department of Geriatric Medicine, Odense University Hospital Svendborg, Denmark. The department holds 32 beds with acutely hospitalized older patients for various illnesses, e.g., falls, infections, and confusion. Participants were recruited using convenience sampling from November 28 to December 16, 2022 and were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria:Aged 65 years or older

Able to communicate with the researcher

Not in a delirious condition as measured by cognitive assessment method (CAM), and/or undiagnosed with dementia.

Exclusion criteria:Younger than 65 years of age.

In delirious state

Diagnosed with dementia

Bilateral femur amputation of the extremities

Two different US scanners were used; (A) HH-US (Vscan Air, GE Healthcare, USA) equipped with a 3–12 MHz linear probe combined with an iPhone 13 (Apple, California, United States) and (B) S-US (GE Venue R2, GE Healthcare) equipped with a 8–13 MHz linear array probe used as the gold standard.

All participants were scanned with both scanners in a random order on the same visit by the same examiner (Rater 1: J.G.P.). Prior to data collection, the examiner (J.G.P.) had received intensive training and supervision from a very experienced medical doctor (Rater 2: K.K.B.) with > 7 years of experience, in acquiring and analyzing US images.

Ultrasound examination

The US examination followed a protocol proposed by Narici et al. [7]. In short, participants, having rested for 5 min, lay supine with extended knees in resting position during the scan. Scans targeted the distal third of the muscle vastus lateralis (VL) on dominant leg (identified by asking the patient), marking 65% of the femur length (LF) from the greater trochanter (TM) to the distal border of the tibio-femorale joint space (TF) (7). This spot, aligned with the probe’s distal edge, guided the perpendicular placement of the transducer along the mid-sagittal axis of the VL (Fig. 1). Three longitudinal images were captured with both scanners repositioning after each image using sufficient contact gel and applying minimal pressure.Fig. 1 Anatomical image of the lower limb showing key reference points; FL; Total femur length.TM; Mid-proximal part of the greater trochanter. TF; Distal border of the tibio-femorale joint space

Image analysis

"NIH ImageJ" software (version 1.42q) was used to calculate muscle thickness (Tm) and fascicle length (Lf) [7]. Tm was measured orthogonally between aponeuroses at mid-image, while Lf spanned between fascicle insertions on superficial and deep aponeuroses (Fig. 2). The mean of three measurements for each parameter was performed. The Lf/Tm ratio served as USI for evaluating sarcopenia [7]. Image analysis was performed independently by both raters at separate locations.Fig. 2 Longitudinal ultrasound image of the muscle vastus lateralis (VL), showing muscle thickness (Tm) and fascicle length (Lf)

Sample size

To our knowledge, no studies have published minimal detectable differences regarding measures of muscle architecture in the lower extremities of older adults. A previous study with an objective close to ours—albeit not the same—reported a sample size of 16 participants [10]. Since this study was the closest one to ours, we used this as a measure for choosing a sample size. Therefore, it has not been possible to estimate a sample size for this study. However, we aimed of a sample size of at least 20 participants for the current study.

Statistical analysis

Demographic characteristics of the participants were summarized using the descriptive analysis. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to evaluate the normality of data with results presented as means (± SD). The validity and intra-rater reliability of US measurements was evaluated using Cohen’s Kappa (κ), with values categorizing agreement from ‘none’ (0.01–0.20) to ‘almost perfect’ (0.81–1) [11]. Inter-rater reliability differences were tested via Student’s t test. Significance was set at p < 0.05, with data management in Microsoft Excel and analysis performed in R-Statistics.

Results

In total, 21 participants (11 women) were recruited and had the following characteristics: A mean age of 83.4 (10.7) years, a mean BMI of 21 (4.0), a mean Barthel-100 of 65 (27), and height level of comorbidity with a mean CCI of 6 (1.6) (Table 1). In addition, pneumonia (including viral pneumonia) was the most common cause for admission (9 participants), followed by falls (3) and urine retention (2) (Table 1). In total, 11 participants had infection as primary cause of admission. Musculoskeletal causes, such as falls, and pain management and mobilization was found in 4 participants (characteristics and reason for admission shown in Table 1). Data regarding validity and intra-rater reliability, results presented as mean with SD, of US measurements of Tm, Lf, and USI of HH-US compared with S-US for both raters are presented in Table 2. Overall, no significant differences were seen regarding the different US variables nor USI between the two US scanners, except for Rater 2 Lf. Rater 1 had ‘substantial’ agreement between HH-US and S-US (κ = 0.77), whereas Rater 2 had ‘almost perfect’ agreement (κ = 0.92). Finally, no significant differences were seen on any US variables among the two raters when comparing the results from both HH-US and S-US.Table 1 Participants characteristics

n: 21	
 Age (years), mean (SD)	83.4 (10.7)	
 Women (n), (%)	11 (52.4%)	
 Height (cm), mean (SD)	170.0 (10.0)	
 Weight (kg), mean (SD)	71.0 (15.9)	
 BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD)	21 (4.0)	
 Barthel index 100 (Shahs version), mean (SD)	65.4 (27.3)	
 Charlson comorbidity index, mean (SD)	6.0 (1.6)	
Primary reason for admission (%)	
 Pneumonia (n)	7 (33.3)	
 Virus pneumonia (n)	2 (9.4)	
 Urinary retention (n)	2 (9.4)	
 Urinary tract infection (n)	1 (4.8)	
 Infection unknown origin (n)	1 (4.8)	
 Confusion (n)	1 (4.8)	
 Fall (n)	3 (14.3)	
 Hypertension (n)	1 (4.8)	
 Social admission (n)	1 (4.8)	
 Constipation (n)	1 (4.8)	
 Pain management and mobilisation, (n)	1 (4.8)	
Data are presented as mean values ± standard deviation or n (%)

BMI body mass index

Table 2 Validity and reliability of HH-US compared to S-US

a Validity and intra-rater reliability of ultrasound measurements for HH-US and S-US for rater 1	
Variable	HH-US	S-US	p	
VL Tm (cm), mean (SD)	1.74 (0.35)	1.72 (0.36)	0.62	
VL Lf (cm), mean (SD)	6.94 (0.62)	6.98 (0.67)	0.82	
			κ	
USI, mean:	Pre-sarcopenic	Pre-sarcopenic	0.77	
b Validity and intra-rater reliability of ultrasound measurements for HH-US and S-US for rater 2	
Variable	HH-US	S-US	p	
VL Tm (cm), mean (SD)	1.78 (0.38)	1.75 (0.35)	0.52	
VL Lf (cm), mean (SD)	7.31 (1.48)	7.72 (1.37)	0.003	
			κ	
USI, mean	Pre-sarcopenic	Pre-sarcopenic	0.92	
c Inter-rater reliability of ultrasound measurements HH-US and S-US for rater 1 and rater 2	
Variable	Rater 1
Mean (SD)	Rater 2
Mean (SD)	p	
VL Tm(cm) HH-US	1.74 (0.35)	1.78 (0.38)	0.91	
VL Tm (cm) S-US	1.72 (0.36)	1.75 (0.35)	0.87	
VL Lf (cm) HH-US	6.94 (0.62)	7.31 (1.48)	0.28	
VL Lf (cm) S-US	6.98 (0.67)	7.72 (1.37)	0.06	
USI HH-US	Pre-sarcopenic	Pre-sarcopenic		
USI S-US	Pre-sarcopenic	Pre-sarcopenic	
Data are presented as mean values ± standard deviation

HH-US hand-held ultrasound, κ Cohen’s Kappa coefficient, Lf fascicle length, S-US stationary ultrasound, Tm muscle thickness; USI ultrasound sarcopenia index, VL muscle vastus lateralis

Discussion

We found an almost “perfect agreement” between HH-US and S-US, when image analysis is carried out by an experienced investigator. Furthermore, we found no significant differences between the two raters’ measurements of US variables and USI from HH-US compared to S-US. Hence, HH-US is sufficient for muscle assessment in the hands of an experienced examiner.

The reported results of US variables (Tm and Lf) are in line with a recent study in older adults [12]. However, our findings cannot be directly compared to prior studies as it is the first to describe HH-US versus S-US use in assessing sarcopenia among geriatric inpatients.

Strengths and limitations

Our study has several strengths. First, the design ensured blinding of results between the two raters limiting potential bias and heightening result credibility [13]. Second, all scans were conducted by the same examiner (J.G.P) ensuring uniformly approach and no differences in quality was experienced. In addition, we made sure the US protocol used only required a minimum level of ultrasound training [14], thus limiting potential errors and strengthen the quality of repeated results. Third, generalizability of the results was strengthened by examining a highly prevalent hospital population, hence making the study relevant for clinical practice.

Our study also has several limitations. First, it was carried out as a single-center study, which may limit applicability to other clinical settings. Second, the scans were performed by a novice examiner who had received US training from an experienced US investigator, which may impair the imaging quality and thereby the interpretation of the USI graduation. Third, we used a small sample size. This may weaken the power of the study and therefor the results. Fourth, due to the general reduced transducer’s window width of the HH-US device, Lf extrapolation was generally necessary, which might result in measurement errors [15]. This could potentially lead to mis-graduation of participants according to the USI. However, when comparing the mean Lf values of HH-US with S-US, no significant differences were found, except for Rater 2’s Lf values. Despite this important limitation, it did not affect overall USI scores when comparing the two scanners.

Conclusion

This study shows that HH-US scanners could be feasible, valid, and reliable for detection of loss of muscle mass associated with sarcopenia in acutely admitted older patients, when compared to S-US in the hands of an experienced examiner. Their portability, affordability, and ease of use could enhance ultrasound accessibility in hospital settings and may enhance clinical practices for sarcopenia detection in older adults. Further studies are necessary to validate HH-US efficacy across different muscles and broader populations.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Christian B. Laursen for his assistance during this project.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Odense University Hospital. This project did not receive any external funding.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

None to declare.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the local ethics committee in the Region of Southern Denmark (Project-ID: 22/31294) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

Each participant received a detailed oral explanation of the study and provided written consent before participation.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Cruz-Jentoft AJ Bahat G Bauer J Boirie Y Bruyère O Cederholm T Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis Age Ageing 2019 48 1 16 31 10.1093/ageing/afy169 30312372
Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyère O, Cederholm T et al (2019) Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 48(1):16–3130312372 10.1093/ageing/afy169
2. Beaudart C McCloskey E Bruyère O Cesari M Rolland Y Rizzoli R Sarcopenia in daily practice: assessment and management BMC Geriatr 2016 16 1 170 10.1186/s12877-016-0349-4 27716195
Beaudart C, McCloskey E, Bruyère O, Cesari M, Rolland Y, Rizzoli R et al (2016) Sarcopenia in daily practice: assessment and management. BMC Geriatr 16(1):17027716195 10.1186/s12877-016-0349-4
3. Perkisas S Bastijns S Baudry S Bauer J Beaudart C Beckwée D Application of ultrasound for muscle assessment in sarcopenia: 2020 SARCUS update Eur Geriatr Med 2021 12 1 45 59 10.1007/s41999-020-00433-9 33387359
Perkisas S, Bastijns S, Baudry S, Bauer J, Beaudart C, Beckwée D et al (2021) Application of ultrasound for muscle assessment in sarcopenia: 2020 SARCUS update. Eur Geriatr Med 12(1):45–5933387359 10.1007/s41999-020-00433-9
4. Franchi MV Raiteri BJ Longo S Sinha S Narici MV Csapo R Muscle architecture assessment: strengths, shortcomings and new frontiers of in vivo imaging techniques Ultrasound Med Biol 2018 44 12 2492 2504 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.07.010 30185385
Franchi MV, Raiteri BJ, Longo S, Sinha S, Narici MV, Csapo R (2018) Muscle architecture assessment: strengths, shortcomings and new frontiers of in vivo imaging techniques. Ultrasound Med Biol 44(12):2492–250430185385 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.07.010
5. Nijholt W Scafoglieri A Jager-Wittenaar H Hobbelen JSM van der Schans CP The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2017 8 5 702 712 10.1002/jcsm.12210 28703496
Nijholt W, Scafoglieri A, Jager-Wittenaar H, Hobbelen JSM, van der Schans CP (2017) The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 8(5):702–71228703496 10.1002/jcsm.12210
6. Nijholt W Jager-Wittenaar H Raj IS van der Schans CP Hobbelen H Reliability and validity of ultrasound to estimate muscles: a comparison between different transducers and parameters Clin Nutr ESPEN 2020 35 146 152 10.1016/j.clnesp.2019.10.009 31987109
Nijholt W, Jager-Wittenaar H, Raj IS, van der Schans CP, Hobbelen H (2020) Reliability and validity of ultrasound to estimate muscles: a comparison between different transducers and parameters. Clin Nutr ESPEN 35:146–15231987109 10.1016/j.clnesp.2019.10.009
7. Narici M McPhee J Conte M Franchi MV Mitchell K Tagliaferri S Age-related alterations in muscle architecture are a signature of sarcopenia: the ultrasound sarcopenia index J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2021 12 4 973 982 10.1002/jcsm.12720 34060717
Narici M, McPhee J, Conte M, Franchi MV, Mitchell K, Tagliaferri S et al (2021) Age-related alterations in muscle architecture are a signature of sarcopenia: the ultrasound sarcopenia index. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 12(4):973–98234060717 10.1002/jcsm.12720
8. Toscano M Szlachetka K Whaley N Thornburg LL Evaluating sensitivity and specificity of handheld point-of-care ultrasound testing for gynecologic pathology: a pilot study for use in low resource settings BMC Med Imaging 2020 20 1 121 10.1186/s12880-020-00518-8 33109134
Toscano M, Szlachetka K, Whaley N, Thornburg LL (2020) Evaluating sensitivity and specificity of handheld point-of-care ultrasound testing for gynecologic pathology: a pilot study for use in low resource settings. BMC Med Imaging 20(1):12133109134 10.1186/s12880-020-00518-8
9. Frohlich E Beller K Muller R Herrmann M Debove I Klinger C Point of care ultrasound in geriatric patients: prospective evaluation of a portable handheld ultrasound device Ultraschall Med 2020 41 3 308 316 10.1055/a-0889-8070 31026863
Frohlich E, Beller K, Muller R, Herrmann M, Debove I, Klinger C et al (2020) Point of care ultrasound in geriatric patients: prospective evaluation of a portable handheld ultrasound device. Ultraschall Med 41(3):308–31631026863 10.1055/a-0889-8070
10. Betz TM Wehrstein M Preisner F Bendszus M Friedmann-Bette B Reliability and validity of a standardised ultrasound examination protocol to quantify vastus lateralis muscle J Rehabil Med 2021 53 7 jmr00212 10.2340/16501977-2854
Betz TM, Wehrstein M, Preisner F, Bendszus M, Friedmann-Bette B (2021) Reliability and validity of a standardised ultrasound examination protocol to quantify vastus lateralis muscle. J Rehabil Med 53(7):jmr0021210.2340/16501977-2854
11. Mchugh M Interrater reliability: the kappa statistics Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012 22 3 276 282 10.11613/BM.2012.031 23092060
Mchugh M (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistics. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 22(3):276–28223092060 10.11613/BM.2012.031
12. Jacob I Johnson MI Jones G Jones A Francis P Age-related differences of vastus lateralis muscle morphology, contractile properties, upper body grip strength and lower extremity functional capability in healthy adults aged 18 to 70 years BMC Geriatr 2022 22 1 538 10.1186/s12877-022-03183-4 35768788
Jacob I, Johnson MI, Jones G, Jones A, Francis P (2022) Age-related differences of vastus lateralis muscle morphology, contractile properties, upper body grip strength and lower extremity functional capability in healthy adults aged 18 to 70 years. BMC Geriatr 22(1):53835768788 10.1186/s12877-022-03183-4
13. Forbes D Blinding: an essential component in decreasing risk of bias in experimental designs Evid Based Nurs 2013 16 3 70 71 10.1136/eb-2013-101382 23696228
Forbes D (2013) Blinding: an essential component in decreasing risk of bias in experimental designs. Evid Based Nurs 16(3):70–7123696228 10.1136/eb-2013-101382
14. Education and Practical Standards CommitteeEuropean Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology Ultraschall in der Medizin European J Ultrasound 2006 27 79 95
Education and Practical Standards Committee, European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (2006) Ultraschall in der Medizin. European J Ultrasound 27:79–95
15. Franchi MV Fitze DP Raiteri BJ Hahn D Sporri J Ultrasound-derived biceps femoris long head fascicle length: extrapolation pitfalls Med Sci Sports Exerc 2020 52 1 233 243 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002123 31403609
Franchi MV, Fitze DP, Raiteri BJ, Hahn D, Sporri J (2020) Ultrasound-derived biceps femoris long head fascicle length: extrapolation pitfalls. Med Sci Sports Exerc 52(1):233–24331403609 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002123
