◔
Ultrasound Guided Injections Evidence: Difference between revisions
From WikiMSK
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||
The two most important aspects to consider when comparing ultrasound vs landmark guided injections are accuracy and efficacy. | |||
For accuracy, the research literature shows ultrasound to be superior to landmark guided injections. This has important implications for precision diagnosis with injection of local anaesthetic.<ref name=":0" /> | |||
The research on efficacy is less conclusive and more higher quality studies are needed. The current evidence shows that ultrasound guided injections are superior to landmark guided injections for the glenohumeral joint, subacromial space, biceps tendon sheath, joints of the hand and wrist, knee, ankle, and foot. <ref name=":0" /> | |||
==Reviews== | ==Reviews== | ||
*Daniels et al 2018 (open access)<ref name=":0">{{#pmid:29511701}}</ref> | *Daniels et al 2018 (open access)<ref name=":0">{{#pmid:29511701}}</ref> | ||
| Line 11: | Line 17: | ||
!Level of Evidence | !Level of Evidence | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Glenohumeral joint | |[[Shoulder Joint Injection|Glenohumeral joint]] | ||
|92.5% | |92.5% | ||
|72.5% | |72.5% | ||
| Line 17: | Line 23: | ||
|2 | |2 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Acromioclavicular joint | |[[Acromioclavicular Joint Injection|Acromioclavicular joint]] | ||
|90-100% | |90-100% | ||
|16.7-72% | |16.7-72% | ||
| Line 23: | Line 29: | ||
|2-4 | |2-4 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Subacromial space | |[[Subacromial Bursa Injection|Subacromial space]] | ||
| - | | - | ||
| - | | - | ||
| Line 29: | Line 35: | ||
|2 | |2 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Biceps tendon | |[[Long Head of Biceps Brachii Tendon Sheath Injection|Biceps tendon]] | ||
|86.7% | |86.7% | ||
|26.7% | |26.7% | ||
| | | USGI superior | ||
|1-2 | |1-2 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Elbow joint | |[[Elbow Joint Injection|Elbow joint]] | ||
|91% | |91% | ||
|64-100% | |64-100% | ||
| Line 45: | Line 51: | ||
|59-81.8% | |59-81.8% | ||
| - | | - | ||
|2-4 | |||
|- | |||
|[[Hip Joint Injection|Hip joint]] | |||
|97-100% | |||
|66.7-77.5% | |||
|USGI superior | |||
|1-4 | |||
|- | |||
|[[Knee Joint Injection|Knee joint]] | |||
|95.8-100% | |||
|55-100% | |||
|USGI superior | |||
|1-2 | |||
|- | |||
|Foot and [[Ankle Joint Injection|ankle]] | |||
|100% | |||
|58-85% | |||
|No difference | |||
|2-4 | |2-4 | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 15:07, 14 June 2021
This article is a stub.
The two most important aspects to consider when comparing ultrasound vs landmark guided injections are accuracy and efficacy.
For accuracy, the research literature shows ultrasound to be superior to landmark guided injections. This has important implications for precision diagnosis with injection of local anaesthetic.[1]
The research on efficacy is less conclusive and more higher quality studies are needed. The current evidence shows that ultrasound guided injections are superior to landmark guided injections for the glenohumeral joint, subacromial space, biceps tendon sheath, joints of the hand and wrist, knee, ankle, and foot. [1]
Reviews
| Structure | USGI Accuracy | LMGI Accuracy | Efficacy | Level of Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glenohumeral joint | 92.5% | 72.5% | USGI superior | 2 |
| Acromioclavicular joint | 90-100% | 16.7-72% | No difference | 2-4 |
| Subacromial space | - | - | USGI superior | 2 |
| Biceps tendon | 86.7% | 26.7% | USGI superior | 1-2 |
| Elbow joint | 91% | 64-100% | - | 1 |
| Hand and wrist joints | 94-100% | 59-81.8% | - | 2-4 |
| Hip joint | 97-100% | 66.7-77.5% | USGI superior | 1-4 |
| Knee joint | 95.8-100% | 55-100% | USGI superior | 1-2 |
| Foot and ankle | 100% | 58-85% | No difference | 2-4 |
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Daniels et al.. Existing Evidence on Ultrasound-Guided Injections in Sports Medicine. Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine 2018. 6:2325967118756576. PMID: 29511701. DOI. Full Text.
- ↑ Finnoff et al.. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine. PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation 2015. 7:151-68.e12. PMID: 25708351. DOI.
