Ultrasound-guided injection for MR arthrography of the hip: comparison of two different techniques

Abstract

The femoral neck injection technique provides high intraarticular contrast volume and produces less extraarticular contrast leakage than the femoral head injection technique when US guidance is used for MR arthrography of the hip.

Ultrasound-guided hip joint injections are more accurate than landmark-guided injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Kantarci et al 13 randomised patients into two arms (comparing two different US-guided approaches) and adequately blinded participants, study personnel and outcome assessors, and also concealed allocation. (4) One of the eight single-arm studies had an independent investigator who did not perform the injection accuracy assessment 18.…”

“…(4) One of the eight single-arm studies had an independent investigator who did not perform the injection accuracy assessment 18. (5) One study had four participant drop-outs (1, needle phobia; 3, MRI claustrophobia); these four patients were eliminated from the analysis 13. (6) All studies reported the accuracy of the injections, and none had selective reporting.…”

“…(1) Four of the papers specifically stated the number of years of experience the individual performing the intervention had (table 2 (iii)) 12 13 16 18. One study did not state how many individuals performed injections, or their experience levels 17.…”

“…One study assessed the flow pattern of the contrast agent under CT to assess accuracy 16. One study assessed the flow pattern of the contrast agent under MRI arthrography to assess accuracy, where all patients were imaged within 10 min of the injection 13. One study used direct visualisation, where the injection was deemed accurate if the dye was only visualised after capsulotomy 19.…”

“…They categorised studies using the scale published by the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 20. The authors found four level 1 studies for US-guided hip injections with a mean accuracy of 99% and range of 97–100%; these four studies were also included in our review 11 13 16 18. The two studies they classified as level 4 and 5 were excluded from our paper 21 22.…”