Limits...
Accuracy of needle placement in cadavers: non-guided versus ultrasound-guided.

Yun JS, Chung MJ, Kim HR, So JI, Park JE, Oh HM, Lee JI - Ann Rehabil Med (2015)

Bottom Line: A 71.9% accuracy rate was achieved by blind needle placement vs. 96.9% accuracy with ultrasound-guided needle placement (p=0.001).Blind needle placement accuracy ranged from 50% to 93.8%.Ultrasound guidance produced superior accuracy compared with that of blind needle placement in most muscles.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the accuracy rates of non-guided vs. ultrasound-guided needle placement in four lower limb muscles (tibialis posterior, peroneus longus, and short and long heads of the biceps femoris).

Methods: Two electromyographers examined the four muscles in each of eight lower limbs from four fresh frozen cadavers. Each electromyographer injected an assigned dye into each targeted muscle in a lower limb twice (once without guidance, another under ultrasound guidance). Therefore, four injections were done in each muscle of one lower limb. All injections were performed by two electromyographers using 18 gauge 1.5 inch or 24 gauge 2.4 inch needles to place 0.5 mL of colored acryl solution into the target muscles. The third person was blinded to the injection technique and dissected the lower limbs and determined injection accuracy.

Results: A 71.9% accuracy rate was achieved by blind needle placement vs. 96.9% accuracy with ultrasound-guided needle placement (p=0.001). Blind needle placement accuracy ranged from 50% to 93.8%.

Conclusion: Ultrasound guidance produced superior accuracy compared with that of blind needle placement in most muscles. Clinicians should consider ultrasound guidance to optimize needle placement in these muscles, particularly the tibialis posterior.

No MeSH data available.


Photograph of a dissected cadaver with incorrectly placed injectate (yellow and red) into the soleus. The needle passed under the intended tibialis posterior target and into the soleus. TP, tibialis posterior; FDL, flexor digitorum longus; S, soleus.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4414961&req=5

Figure 2: Photograph of a dissected cadaver with incorrectly placed injectate (yellow and red) into the soleus. The needle passed under the intended tibialis posterior target and into the soleus. TP, tibialis posterior; FDL, flexor digitorum longus; S, soleus.

Mentions: Fig. 2 is a photograph of a dissected cadaver after blind and US-guided injections. It shows that the needle passed under the intended tibialis posterior target, and that injectate (yellow or red) was placed inaccurately into the soleus instead of the tibialis posterior (Fig. 2).


Accuracy of needle placement in cadavers: non-guided versus ultrasound-guided.

Yun JS, Chung MJ, Kim HR, So JI, Park JE, Oh HM, Lee JI - Ann Rehabil Med (2015)

Photograph of a dissected cadaver with incorrectly placed injectate (yellow and red) into the soleus. The needle passed under the intended tibialis posterior target and into the soleus. TP, tibialis posterior; FDL, flexor digitorum longus; S, soleus.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4414961&req=5

Figure 2: Photograph of a dissected cadaver with incorrectly placed injectate (yellow and red) into the soleus. The needle passed under the intended tibialis posterior target and into the soleus. TP, tibialis posterior; FDL, flexor digitorum longus; S, soleus.
Mentions: Fig. 2 is a photograph of a dissected cadaver after blind and US-guided injections. It shows that the needle passed under the intended tibialis posterior target, and that injectate (yellow or red) was placed inaccurately into the soleus instead of the tibialis posterior (Fig. 2).

Bottom Line: A 71.9% accuracy rate was achieved by blind needle placement vs. 96.9% accuracy with ultrasound-guided needle placement (p=0.001).Blind needle placement accuracy ranged from 50% to 93.8%.Ultrasound guidance produced superior accuracy compared with that of blind needle placement in most muscles.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the accuracy rates of non-guided vs. ultrasound-guided needle placement in four lower limb muscles (tibialis posterior, peroneus longus, and short and long heads of the biceps femoris).

Methods: Two electromyographers examined the four muscles in each of eight lower limbs from four fresh frozen cadavers. Each electromyographer injected an assigned dye into each targeted muscle in a lower limb twice (once without guidance, another under ultrasound guidance). Therefore, four injections were done in each muscle of one lower limb. All injections were performed by two electromyographers using 18 gauge 1.5 inch or 24 gauge 2.4 inch needles to place 0.5 mL of colored acryl solution into the target muscles. The third person was blinded to the injection technique and dissected the lower limbs and determined injection accuracy.

Results: A 71.9% accuracy rate was achieved by blind needle placement vs. 96.9% accuracy with ultrasound-guided needle placement (p=0.001). Blind needle placement accuracy ranged from 50% to 93.8%.

Conclusion: Ultrasound guidance produced superior accuracy compared with that of blind needle placement in most muscles. Clinicians should consider ultrasound guidance to optimize needle placement in these muscles, particularly the tibialis posterior.

No MeSH data available.