Journal Home
Search for

Volume 2, Issue 8, Pages 732-739 (August 2010)


View previous. 6 of 16 View next.

Accuracy of Ultrasound-Guided versus Unguided Pes Anserinus Bursa Injections

Jonathan T. Finnoff, DOaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, David J. Nutz, MDb, Philip T. Henning, DOc, John H. Hollman, PT, PhDd, Jay Smith, MDe

Received 22 December 2009; accepted 8 March 2010. published online 05 July 2010.

Objective

To compare the accuracy of ultrasound (US)-guided versus unguided pes anserinus bursa injections in a cadaveric model.

Design

Single blind, prospective study.

Setting

Academic institution procedural skills laboratory.

Participants

Twenty-four unembalmed, unpaired adult cadaveric lower extremity specimens.

Methods

A single investigator performed 12 US-guided and 12 unguided pes anserinus bursa injections using colored liquid latex into 24 unembalmed adult cadaveric lower extremity specimens. The order of the injection techniques was randomized. The specimens were subsequently dissected by a co-investigator blinded to the injection technique used for each injection.

Main Outcome Measures

The injections were graded for accuracy as follows: accurate (all injectate contained within the pes anserinus bursa), accurate with overflow (injectate within the pes anserinus bursa, but also located in adjacent structures), or inaccurate (injectate not within the pes anserinus bursa). The accuracy of the 2 approaches was compared using Pearson χ2 test with Williams' correction for the small sample size (P = .05).

Results

The accuracy rate was 92% (11 of 12 specimens) in the US-guided condition and 17% (2 of 12 specimens) in the unguided condition. One US-guided injection was considered accurate with overflow, whereas 4 unguided injections were accurate with overflow. The US-guided injection technique was significantly more accurate than the unguided technique (Williams-corrected χ2 = 12.528, P < .01).

Conclusions

Despite its superficial location, unguided pes anserinus bursa injections rarely place the injectate within the pes anserinus bursa, whereas US-guided pes anserinus bursa injections have a high degree of accuracy. Therefore, clinicians should consider using US-guidance for diagnostic or therapeutic pes anserinus bursa injections when indicated.

a Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Sports Medicine Center, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 559051

b Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN2

c Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Sports Medicine Center, Rochester, MN3

d Physical Therapy, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN4

e Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Sports Medicine Center, Rochester, MN5

Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: J.T.F.

 Financial support for this project was provided through the small grants program of the Mayo Clinic.

 Disclosure Key can be found on the Table of Contents and at www.pmrjournal.org

1 Disclosure: nothing to disclose

2 Disclosure: nothing to disclose

3 Disclosure: nothing to disclose

4 Disclosure: nothing to disclose

5 Disclosure: nothing to disclose

PII: S1934-1482(10)00204-2

doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.03.014


View previous. 6 of 16 View next.