The evaluation of muscle strength and architecture in type 1 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study


Creative Commons License

Tan S., GÜNENDİ Z., MERAY J., YETKİN İ.

BMC ENDOCRINE DISORDERS, vol.22, no.1, 2022 (Peer-Reviewed Journal) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 22 Issue: 1
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.1186/s12902-022-01062-y
  • Journal Name: BMC ENDOCRINE DISORDERS
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Keywords: Type 1 diabetes mellitus, Exercises, Ultrasonography, Muscle architecture, GLYCEMIC CONTROL, ASSOCIATION, ULTRASOUND, ADULTS, HEALTH

Abstract

Background The aim of this study is to compare muscle strength and architecture between type 1 diabetes patients and healthy volunteers and to assess whether there is an ultrasonographic structural change in this population. Methods Thirty-two patients with T1D (23 female, 9 male) with an age average of 31.3 +/- 8.7 years, matched in terms of age, gender, height, weight and physical activity were included in the study. In the T1D and control group, ultrasonographic measurements of quadriceps femoris muscle (RF, VI, VM, VL) and pennate angle (VI, VM, VL) were performed. Muscle strength values were measured using isokinetic dynamometer system at angular velocities of 60o/s and 180o/s in both groups. Results Initially, both groups were similar in demographic and clinical characteristics (p > 0.05). In the T1D group, there was a statistically significant difference in flexion/extension peak torque measurements at an angular velocity of 60o/s compared to the control group (p < 0.05). In support of these isokinetic measurements, RF, VI, VM, VL muscle thicknesses and VI, VM pennate angle measurements in T1Ds were significantly lower (p < 0.05). When the T1D group was subgrouped according to HbA1C and diabetes duration, there was no significant difference in ultrasonographic and isokinetic measurements between the two groups (p > 0.05). When the T1D group was subgrouped, in the group that used insulin pump RF, VI, VM muscle thickness measurements were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than the group using subcutaneous insulin. Conclusions This study supports that muscle strength and architecture are adversely affected in the T1D patient group, insulin deficiency is a risk factor for sarcopenia and this can be shown through ultrasonography. It can also be said that insulin pump use has more positive effects in terms of diabetic myopathy than subcutaneous insulin, and diabetic myopathy develops independently of other diabetic complications. As a result, the muscle architecture of T1D people is adversely affected by insulin deprivation, so regular physical activity should be an integral part of diabetes treatment.