Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Chapter 5 - Imaging

  • from Part I - Evaluation and Treatment of Patients with a Neuromuscular Disorder
  • Jessica E. Hoogendijk, University Medical Center Utrecht, Marianne de Visser, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Pieter A. van Doorn, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Erik H. Niks, Leiden University Medical Center
  • Book:
    Neuromuscular Disease
    Published online:
    29 November 2024
    Print publication:
    19 December 2024, pp 42-46

  • Summary

    Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) of nerves and muscles are increasingly used as complementary tools in the diagnosis of neuromuscular disorders. Ultrasound has superior image resolution over MRI, a flexible field of view, and relatively low cost. US is also the preferred imaging modality when evaluating superficial structures. In contrast, MRI has the advantage of dedicated sequences with unique tissue-discriminating properties, and coverage of more deeply located structures. However, MRI requires dedicated protocols and visual assessment is limited by a high interobserver variability. US is device- and operator-dependent, and less suitable for evaluating much deeper structures. Visual assessment is, like MRI, subject to interobserver variability. Qualitative US has the ability to obtain more objective and repeatable measures.