Onishi, Kentaro

ObjectivesTo 1) determine the types and frequency of complications within 3 months following ultrasound‐guided surgical procedures, and 2) identify any patient demographics, co‐morbidities, or procedural characteristics that were associated with an increased risk of complications.MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed at six Sports Medicine clinics across the United States. The Clavien‐Dindo classification was used to categorize procedural complications on a 5‐point scale from 1, representing any deviation in post‐procedure care without requiring pharmacological or invasive treatment to 5, representing death. Generalized Estimating Equations for binomial outcomes with a logit link were used to estimate the overall and procedure‐specific 3‐month complication rates.ResultsAmong 1902 patients, 8.1% (n = 154) had diabetes and 6.3% (n = 119) were current smokers. The analysis included 2,369 procedures, which were performed in either the upper extremity (44.1%, n = 1045) or lower extremity (55.2%, n = 1308) regions. The most common procedure was ultrasound‐guided tenotomy (69.9%, n = 1655). Additional procedures included, trigger finger release (13.1%, n = 310), tendon scraping (8.0%, n = 189), carpal tunnel release (5.4%, n = 128), soft tissue release (2.1%, n = 50), and compartment fasciotomy (1.6%, n = 37). Overall, there was a complication rate of 1.2% (n = 29 complications; 95% CI: 0.8–1.7%). Individual procedures had complication rates that ranged from 0 to 2.7%. There were 13 Grade I complications in 13 patients, 12 Grade II complications in 10 patients, 4 Grade III complications in 4 patients, and 0 Grade IV or V complications. No associations between complication risk and any patient demographics (age, sex, BMI), co‐morbidities (diabetes, smoker), or procedure characteristics (type, region) were identified.ConclusionThis retrospective review provides an evidence‐based estimate supporting the low level of risk associated with ultrasound‐guided surgical procedures for patients from a variety of geographical settings who are seeking care at private and academic‐affiliated clinics.

Objectives The current lack of agreement regarding standardized terminology in musculoskeletal and sports ultrasound presents challenges in education, clinical practice, and research. This consensus was developed to provide a reference to improve clarity and consistency in communication. Methods A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened consisting of 18 members representing multiple specialty societies identified as key stakeholders in musculoskeletal and sports ultrasound. A Delphi process was used to reach consensus which was defined as group level agreement >80%. Results Content was organized into seven general topics including: 1) General Definitions, 2) Equipment and Transducer Manipulation, 3) Anatomic and Descriptive Terminology, 4) Pathology, 5) Procedural Terminology, 6) Image Labeling, and 7) Documentation. Terms and definitions which reached consensus agreement are presented herein. Conclusions The historic use of multiple similar terms in the absence of precise definitions has led to confusion when conveying information between colleagues, patients, and third‐party payers. This multidisciplinary expert consensus addresses multiple areas of variability in diagnostic ultrasound imaging and ultrasound‐guided procedures related to musculoskeletal and sports medicine.