Shane Hoeber1, Abdel-Rahman Aly1, Nigel Ashworth1, Sathish Rajasekaran2. 1. Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2. Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Sports Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the accuracy of ultrasound (US)-guided versus landmark-guided hip joint injections. METHODS: PubMed, Medline and Cochrane libraries were searched up to 31 July 2014. Two independent authors selected studies assessing accuracy of intra-articular hip injections based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Selected papers were then evaluated for quality and a meta-analysis of accuracy was performed using random effects models. RESULTS: 4 US-guided (136 hip injections) and 5 landmark-guided (295 hip injections) studies were reviewed. The weighted means for US-guided and landmark-guided hip injection accuracies were 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%) and 72% (95% CI 56% to 85%), respectively. US-guided hip injection accuracy was significantly higher than landmark-guided accuracy (p<0.0001). SUMMARY: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of US-guided versus landmark-guided hip joint injections that has revealed that US-guided injections are significantly more accurate than those that are landmark guided. Future studies should compare US with fluoroscopic-guided hip joint injections for accuracy, efficacy, safety profile, cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
AIM: To compare the accuracy of ultrasound (US)-guided versus landmark-guided hip joint injections. METHODS: PubMed, Medline and Cochrane libraries were searched up to 31 July 2014. Two independent authors selected studies assessing accuracy of intra-articular hip injections based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Selected papers were then evaluated for quality and a meta-analysis of accuracy was performed using random effects models. RESULTS: 4 US-guided (136 hip injections) and 5 landmark-guided (295 hip injections) studies were reviewed. The weighted means for US-guided and landmark-guided hip injection accuracies were 100% (95% CI 98% to 100%) and 72% (95% CI 56% to 85%), respectively. US-guided hip injection accuracy was significantly higher than landmark-guided accuracy (p<0.0001). SUMMARY: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of US-guided versus landmark-guided hip joint injections that has revealed that US-guided injections are significantly more accurate than those that are landmark guided. Future studies should compare US with fluoroscopic-guided hip joint injections for accuracy, efficacy, safety profile, cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Heather Roesly; Michael Archibeck; A Michael Henrie; Justin Provo; Justin Foley; Andrew Boyer; Masaru Teramoto; Daniel M Cushman Journal: J Orthop Date: 2022-09-14
Authors: Ashish Patel; Nicholson Chadwick; Kelly von Beck; Pulak Goswami; Steven B Soliman; Arjun Patel; Kevin C McGill Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 2.128