Accuracy and Efficacy of Intra-Articular Knee Injections/Aspirations Under Ultrasound versus Landmark Guidance: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.4 4区医学 Q1 REHABILITATION

American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2025-07-23 DOI:10.1097/PHM.0000000000002803

Donald Kasitinon, Reed Williams, Veena Peraka, Levent Özçakar, Nitin B Jain

{"title":"Accuracy and Efficacy of Intra-Articular Knee Injections/Aspirations Under Ultrasound versus Landmark Guidance: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Donald Kasitinon, Reed Williams, Veena Peraka, Levent Özçakar, Nitin B Jain","doi":"10.1097/PHM.0000000000002803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To review the current literature on the accuracy and efficacy of ultrasound (US)- and landmark (LM)-guided intra-articular knee injections.Methods: A systematic review was performed following the Cochrane process from April 2023 to August 2023 utilizing PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Branched logic was used to include articles containing terms regarding the knee AND ultrasound AND injections. Two authors screened studies for eligibility, and any disagreement was resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Risk-of-bias assessments were performed.Results: A total of 13 studies were included in the review. Cumulative accuracies amounted to 95.4% (356/373) versus 82.0% (268/327) for US-guided and LM-guided intra-articular knee injections/aspirations, respectively. All but one study looking at efficacy showed significantly improved outcomes in the US-guided injection/aspiration groups.Conclusions: This systematic review provides data to support that US-guided intra-articular knee injections/aspirations are more accurate and efficacious than LM-guided intra-articular knee injections/aspirations.Level of evidence: Level I - systematic review.","PeriodicalId":7850,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000002803","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To review the current literature on the accuracy and efficacy of ultrasound (US)- and landmark (LM)-guided intra-articular knee injections.

Methods: A systematic review was performed following the Cochrane process from April 2023 to August 2023 utilizing PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Branched logic was used to include articles containing terms regarding the knee AND ultrasound AND injections. Two authors screened studies for eligibility, and any disagreement was resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Risk-of-bias assessments were performed.

Results: A total of 13 studies were included in the review. Cumulative accuracies amounted to 95.4% (356/373) versus 82.0% (268/327) for US-guided and LM-guided intra-articular knee injections/aspirations, respectively. All but one study looking at efficacy showed significantly improved outcomes in the US-guided injection/aspiration groups.

Conclusions: This systematic review provides data to support that US-guided intra-articular knee injections/aspirations are more accurate and efficacious than LM-guided intra-articular knee injections/aspirations.

Level of evidence: Level I - systematic review.

查看原文本刊更多论文

超声引导下膝关节内注射/穿刺的准确性和有效性与里程碑式指导：一项系统综述。

目的：回顾超声（US）和路标（LM）引导下膝关节关节内注射的准确性和有效性。方法：利用PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Scopus，对2023年4月至2023年8月的Cochrane过程进行系统评价。分支逻辑被用来包括包含关于膝盖、超声和注射的术语的文章。两位作者筛选研究的合格性，任何分歧都通过与第三位审稿人讨论来解决。进行偏倚风险评估。结果：本综述共纳入13项研究。在us引导和lm引导下，膝关节关节内注射/穿刺的累计准确率分别为95.4%（356/373）和82.0%（268/327）。除一项研究外，其他研究均显示在us引导下注射/抽吸组的疗效显著改善。结论：本系统综述提供的数据支持us引导的膝关节关节内注射/入路比lm引导的膝关节关节内注射/入路更准确和有效。证据等级：一级——系统评价。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

6.70%

发文量

423

审稿时长

1 months

期刊介绍： American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation focuses on the practice, research and educational aspects of physical medicine and rehabilitation. Monthly issues keep physiatrists up-to-date on the optimal functional restoration of patients with disabilities, physical treatment of neuromuscular impairments, the development of new rehabilitative technologies, and the use of electrodiagnostic studies. The Journal publishes cutting-edge basic and clinical research, clinical case reports and in-depth topical reviews of interest to rehabilitation professionals. Topics include prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal conditions, brain injury, spinal cord injury, cardiopulmonary disease, trauma, acute and chronic pain, amputation, prosthetics and orthotics, mobility, gait, and pediatrics as well as areas related to education and administration. Other important areas of interest include cancer rehabilitation, aging, and exercise. The Journal has recently published a series of articles on the topic of outcomes research. This well-established journal is the official scholarly publication of the Association of Academic Physiatrists (AAP).