Ultrasound-Guided Procedures in Rheumatology Daily Practice: Feasibility, Accuracy, and Safety Issues.
Journal
Journal of clinical rheumatology : practical reports on rheumatic & musculoskeletal diseases
ISSN: 1536-7355
Titre abrégé: J Clin Rheumatol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9518034
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Sep 2021
01 Sep 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
31
1
2020
medline:
28
8
2021
entrez:
31
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aims of this study were to describe in detail the ultrasound (US)-guided procedures in our daily rheumatology practice, to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of US-guided procedures, and to test the efficacy of our disinfection protocol in preventing infectious complications. This was a cross-sectional and monocentric study. Information regarding patients' age, sex, body mass index, rheumatic disease, US pathological findings, aspirated and/or injected anatomical site, US equipment (ie, probe type and frequency), and needle type was consecutively collected for each US-guided procedure in a third-level rheumatology center. A total of 643 US-guided procedures were performed, with a mean of 5.2 procedures per working-day. In 94.2% of the patients, only one procedure was carried out, whereas in 5.8%, more than one. The mean time was 7 ± 2.5 minutes. Ultrasound-guided procedures were highly accurate (accuracy rate higher than 95%) and safe (adverse events were reported in 0.8%). Our disinfection protocol was effective in preventing infectious complications. Probes with frequency values between 8 to 13 MHz and 20-, 21-, and 22-gauge needles were the most frequently used at shoulder, knee, wrist, elbow, and ankle level. High-frequency linear probes (ranging between 18 and 22 MHz) and 23- and 25-gauge needles were used for injecting small joints of the hands and feet. Convex low-frequency probe (2-7 MHz) and 18- and 20-gauge needles were the most used for performing hip joint aspirations and/or injections. This study reports useful information for setting up a service providing US-guided procedures in rheumatology and supports the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of US-guided procedures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aims of this study were to describe in detail the ultrasound (US)-guided procedures in our daily rheumatology practice, to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of US-guided procedures, and to test the efficacy of our disinfection protocol in preventing infectious complications.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a cross-sectional and monocentric study. Information regarding patients' age, sex, body mass index, rheumatic disease, US pathological findings, aspirated and/or injected anatomical site, US equipment (ie, probe type and frequency), and needle type was consecutively collected for each US-guided procedure in a third-level rheumatology center.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 643 US-guided procedures were performed, with a mean of 5.2 procedures per working-day. In 94.2% of the patients, only one procedure was carried out, whereas in 5.8%, more than one. The mean time was 7 ± 2.5 minutes. Ultrasound-guided procedures were highly accurate (accuracy rate higher than 95%) and safe (adverse events were reported in 0.8%). Our disinfection protocol was effective in preventing infectious complications. Probes with frequency values between 8 to 13 MHz and 20-, 21-, and 22-gauge needles were the most frequently used at shoulder, knee, wrist, elbow, and ankle level. High-frequency linear probes (ranging between 18 and 22 MHz) and 23- and 25-gauge needles were used for injecting small joints of the hands and feet. Convex low-frequency probe (2-7 MHz) and 18- and 20-gauge needles were the most used for performing hip joint aspirations and/or injections.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study reports useful information for setting up a service providing US-guided procedures in rheumatology and supports the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of US-guided procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32000229
pii: 00124743-202109000-00002
doi: 10.1097/RHU.0000000000001298
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
226-231Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Grassi W, Farina A, Filippucci E, et al. Sonographically guided procedures in rheumatology. Semin Arthritis Rheum . 2001;30:347–353.
Mandl P, Naredo E, Conaghan PG, et al. Practice of ultrasound-guided arthrocentesis and joint injection, including training and implementation, in Europe: results of a survey of experts and scientific societies. Rheumatology (Oxford) . 2012;51:184–190.
Koski JM. Ultrasound guided injections in rheumatology. J Rheumatol . 2000;27:2131–2138.
D'Agostino MA, Schmidt WA. Ultrasound-guided injections in rheumatology: actual knowledge on efficacy and procedures. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol . 2013;27:283–294.
Kuusalo LA, Puolakka KT, Kautiainen H, et al. Intra-articular glucocorticoid injections should not be neglected in the remission targeted treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis from the NEO-RACo trial. Clin Exp Rheumatol . 2016;34:1038–1044.
Stephens M, Beutler A, O'Connor F. Musculoskeletal injections: a review of the evidence. Am Fam Physician . 2008;78:971–976.
Balint PV, Kane D, Hunter J, et al. Ultrasound guided versus conventional joint and soft tissue fluid aspiration in rheumatology practice : a pilot study. J Rheumatol . 2002;29:2209–2213.
Zingas C, Failla JM, Van Holsbeeck M. Injection accuracy and clinical relief of de Quervain's tendinitis. J Hand Surg Am . 1998;23:89–96.
Eustace JA, Brophy DP, Gibney RP, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of steroid placement with clinical outcome in patients with shoulder symptoms. Ann Rheum Dis . 1997;56:59–63.
Jones A, Regan M, Ledingham J, et al. Importance of placement of intra-articular steroid injections. BMJ . 1993;307:1329–1330.
Porat S, Leupold JA, Burnett KR, et al. Reliability of non-imaging-guided glenohumeral joint injection through rotator interval approach in patients undergoing diagnostic MR arthrography. Am J Roentgenol . 2008;191:W96–W99.
Weidner S, Kellner W, Kellner H. Interventional radiology and the musculoskeletal system. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol . 2004;18:945–956.
Finnoff JT, Hall MM, Adams E, et al. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine. Br J Sports Med . 2015;49:145–150.
Aly AR, Rajasekaran S, Ashworth N. Ultrasound-guided shoulder girdle injections are more accurate and more effective than landmark-guided injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med . 2015;49:1042–1049.
Daniels EW, Cole D, Jacobs B, et al. Existing evidence on ultrasound-guided injections in sports medicine. Orthop J Sport Med . 2018;6:232596711875657.
Hoeber S, Aly AR, Ashworth N, et al. Ultrasound-guided hip joint injections are more accurate than landmark-guided injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med . 2016;50:392–396.
Ammitzbøll-Danielsen M, Østergaard M, Fana V, et al. Intramuscular versus ultrasound-guided intratenosynovial glucocorticoid injection for tenosynovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, controlled study. Ann Rheum Dis . 2017;76:666–672.
Di Geso L, Filippucci E, Meenagh G, et al. CS injection of tenosynovitis in patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis: the role of US. Rheumatology (Oxford) . 2012;51:1299–1303.
Naredo E, D'Agostino MA, Conaghan PG, et al. Current state of musculoskeletal ultrasound training and implementation in Europe: results of a survey of experts and scientific societies. Rheumatology (Oxford) . 2010;49:2438–2443.
Sibbitt WL, Band PA, Chavez-Chiang NR, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided Intraarticular injection of inflammatory arthritis. J Rheumatol . 2011;38:252–263.
Sibbitt W, Kettwich L, Band P, et al. Does ultrasound guidance improve the outcomes of arthrocentesis and corticosteroid injection of the knee? Scand J Rheumatol . 2012;41:66–72.
Gutierrez M, Di Matteo A, Rosemffet M, et al. Short-term efficacy to conventional blind injection versus ultrasound-guided injection of local corticosteroids in tenosynovitis in patients with inflammatory chronic arthritis: a randomized comparative study. Joint Bone Spine . 2016;83:161–166.
Sibbitt WL, Band PA, Kettwich LG, et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the cost-effectiveness of sonographic guidance for intra-articular injection of the osteoarthritic knee. J Clin Rheumatol . 2011;17:409–415.
Chavez-Chiang NR, Sibbitt WL, Band PA, et al. The outcomes and cost-effectiveness of intraarticular injection of the rheumatoid knee. Rheumatol Int . 2012;32:513–518.
Bashir M, Ray R, Sarda P, et al. Determination of a safe INR for joint injections in patients taking warfarin. Ann R Coll Surg Engl . 2015;97:589–591.
Ahmed I, Gertner E. Safety of arthrocentesis and joint injection in patients receiving anticoagulation at therapeutic levels. Am J Med . 2012;125:265–269.
Yui JC, Preskill C, Greenlund LS. Arthrocentesis and joint injection in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants. Mayo Clin Proc . 2017;92:1223–1226.
Brinks A, Koes BW, Volkers AC, et al. Adverse effects of extra-articular corticosteroid injections: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord . 2010;11:206.
Möller I, Janta I, Backhaus M, et al. The 2017 EULAR standardised procedures for ultrasound imaging in rheumatology. Ann Rheum Dis . 2017;76:1974–1979.
Punzi L, Cimmino MA, Frizziero L, et al. Italian Society of Rheumatology (SIR) recommendations for performing arthrocentesis. Reumatismo . 2011;59:227–234.
Micu MC, Vlad VM, Bolboacă SD, et al. Musculoskeletal ultrasound guided manoeuvres–a security profile. Med Ultrason . 2014;16:214–221.
Charalambous CP, Tryfonidis M, Sadiq S, et al. Septic arthritis following intra-articular steroid injection of the knee? A survey of current practice regarding antiseptic technique used during intra-articular steroid injection of the knee. Clin Rheumatol . 2003;22:386–390.
Polishchuk D, Gehrmann R, Tan V. Skin sterility after application of ethyl chloride spray. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2012;94:118–120.
Koibuchi H, Fujii Y, Kotani K, et al. Degradation of ultrasound probes caused by disinfection with alcohol. J Med Ultrason . 2011;38:97–100.
Di Carlo M, Di Matteo A, Filippucci E, et al. Terapia Infiltrativa Ecoguidata in Reumatologia . 1st ed. Fidenza, Italy: Mattioli 1885; 2016.
Koski JM, Saarakkala SJ, Heikkinen JO, et al. Use of air-steroid-saline mixture as contrast medium in greyscale ultrasound imaging: experimental study and practical applications in rheumatology. Clin Exp Rheumatol . 2005;23:373–378.
Shaw MK, Davis SA, Fleischer AB, et al. The duration of office visits in the United States, 1993 to 2010. Am J Manag Care . 2014;20:820–826.
Seror P, Pluvinage P, d'Andre FL, et al. Frequency of sepsis after local corticosteroid injection (an inquiry on 1160000 injections in rheumatological private practice in France). Rheumatology (Oxford) . 1999;38:1272–1274.
Cervini P, Hesley GK, Thompson RL, et al. Incidence of infectious complications after an ultrasound-guided intervention. Am J Roentgenol . 2010;195:846–850.