PM&R
Volume 2, Issue 8 , Pages 732-739, August 2010

Accuracy of Ultrasound-Guided versus Unguided Pes Anserinus Bursa Injections

  • Jonathan T. Finnoff, DO

      Affiliations

    • Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Sports Medicine Center, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 559051
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: J.T.F.
  • ,
  • David J. Nutz, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN2
  • ,
  • Philip T. Henning, DO

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Sports Medicine Center, Rochester, MN3
  • ,
  • John H. Hollman, PT, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Physical Therapy, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN4
  • ,
  • Jay Smith, MD

      Affiliations

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

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.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 
  • 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

 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

PII: S1934-1482(10)00204-2

doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.03.014

PM&R
Volume 2, Issue 8 , Pages 732-739, August 2010