Trial reportJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2025
Anterolateral hip injection approach under portable ultrasound guidance: a prospective randomized controlled trial versus conventional ultrasound.
Trial report in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Real-Time Biplane Versus Single-Plane US-guided Hip Joint Injection: A Single-Center Prospective Study.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate an innovative anterolateral approach using portable ultrasound, comparing the accuracy and safety of portable ultrasound-guided, conventional ultrasound-guided, and landmark-based blind injection techniques.
methodsIn this single-centre, prospective, randomised controlled trial, 117 patients with hip pain were randomly assigned to three groups: landmark-based blind injection (n = 39), conventional ultrasound-guided injection (n = 39), and portable ultrasound-guided injection (n = 39). Each patient received a unilateral injection of 2.5 ml hyaluronic acid and 1 ml betamethasone via the anterolateral approach, using parameters optimized from previous research. Primary endpoints included success and accuracy rates, while secondary endpoints comprised post-injection visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, procedure time, puncture depth, and complications.
resultsThe portable ultrasound group achieved 100% success and accuracy rates, comparable to the conventional ultrasound group, whereas the blind group showed lower success (87.2%) and accuracy (79.4%) rates. Post-injection VAS pain scores were significantly lower in the portable ultrasound group (1.95, SD 0.99) compared with the blind group (2.95, SD 1.61; p = 0.007) and similar to those in the conventional ultrasound group (2.41, SD 1.27; p = 0.337). Procedure times were comparable across all groups, and no significant differences in puncture depth were observed. Importantly, no injection-related complications were reported.
conclusionPortable ultrasound-guided injections via the anterolateral approach demonstrate accuracy and safety comparable to conventional ultrasound-guided injections. Additionally, the portable device offers advantages in portability, reduced space requirements, and cost-effectiveness, thereby enhancing clinical utility in outpatient settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40360827What 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.