ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2017
Retrospective Analysis of the Accuracy of Ultrasound-Guided Magnetic Resonance Arthrogram Injections of the Hip in the Office Setting.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltrasound (US)-guided intra-articular hip injections have been proposed in the literature to be accurate, reliable, and safe alternatives to fluoroscopy-guided injections. PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of US-guided magnetic resonance (MR) arthrogram injections of the hip performed in the office setting by a single orthopaedic surgeon and elucidate the potential effects that patient age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) have on contrast placement. STUDY
designCase series; Level of evidence, 4.
methodsFrom a review of the senior author's office database, 89 patients (101 hips) who had US-guided MR arthrogram injections performed between December 2014 and June 2016 were identified. Official radiology reports were evaluated to determine whether extra-articular contrast was noted. Patient variables, including BMI, age, and sex, were evaluated between patients who had inappropriately placed contrast and those who did not.
resultsOf the 101 hip injections, there were 6 cases that demonstrated inadequate contrast placement within the joint, likely secondary to extravasation or incorrect placement; however, an MR arthrogram was adequately interpreted in all cases. There were no significant differences noted between those with appropriate versus inappropriate contrast placement when evaluating BMI (
conclusionUS-guided injections are safe and accurate alternatives to fluoroscopy-guided injections in the office setting, with 94% accuracy. Furthermore, BMI, age, and sex did not play a statistically significant role among patients with inappropriately placed contrast.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.