Ultrasound Imaging as a Visual Biofeedback Tool in Rehabilitation: An Updated Systematic Review

Juan Antonio Valera-Calero, César Fernández- de-las-Peñas, Umut Varol, Ricardo Ortega-Santiago, Gracia María Gallego-Sendarrubias and José Luis Arias-Buría
Additional contact information
Juan Antonio Valera-Calero: Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, Universidad Camilo José Cela, 28692 Villanueva de la Cañada, Spain
César Fernández- de-las-Peñas: Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28922 Alcorcón, Spain
Umut Varol: IE School of Human Sciences and Technology, IE University, 28006 Madrid, Spain
Ricardo Ortega-Santiago: Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28922 Alcorcón, Spain
Gracia María Gallego-Sendarrubias: Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, Universidad Camilo José Cela, 28692 Villanueva de la Cañada, Spain
José Luis Arias-Buría: Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28922 Alcorcón, Spain

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 14, 1-19

Abstract: Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) is used by physical therapists as a feedback tool for measuring changes in muscle morphology during therapeutic interventions such as motor control exercises (MCE). However, a structured overview of its efficacy is lacking. We aimed to systematically review the efficacy of RUSI for improving MCE programs compared with no feedback and other feedback methods. MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases were searched for studies evaluating efficacy data of RUSI to improve muscular morphology, quality, and/or function of skeletal muscles and MCE success. Eleven studies analyzing RUSI feedback during MCE were included. Most studies showed acceptable methodological quality. Seven studies assessed abdominal wall muscles, one assessed pelvic floor muscles, one serratus anterior muscle, and two lumbar multifidi. Eight studies involved healthy subjects and three studies clinical populations. Eight studies assessed muscle thickness and pressure differences during MCE, two assessed the number of trials needed to successfully perform MCE, three assessed the retain success, seven assessed the muscle activity with electromyography and one assessed clinical severity outcomes. Visual RUSI feedback seems to be more effective than tactile and/or verbal biofeedback for improving MCE performance and retention success, but no differences with pressure unit biofeedback were found.

Keywords: ultrasound imaging; rehabilitation; feedback; motor control; systematic review (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7554/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7554/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:14:p:7554-:d:595005

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().