Finnoff, Jonathan T.

Background: Traditionally, ultrasound has been used to evaluate musculoskeletal injuries in athletes; however, ultrasound applications extend well beyond musculoskeletal conditions, many of which are pertinent to athletes. Evidence Acquisition: Articles were identified in PubMed using the search terms ultrasound, echocardiogram, preparticipation physical examination, glycogen, focused assessment with sonography of trauma, optic nerve, and vocal cord dysfunction. No date restrictions were placed on the literature search. Study Design: Clinical review. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Results: Several potential applications of nonmusculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine are presented, including extended Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (eFAST), limited echocardiographic screening during preparticipation physical examinations, assessment of muscle glycogen stores, optic nerve sheath diameter measurements in athletes with increased intracranial pressure, and assessment of vocal cord dysfunction in athletes. Conclusion: Ultrasound can potentially be used to assist athletes with monitoring their muscle glycogen stores and the diagnosis of multiple nonmusculoskeletal conditions within sports medicine.

Background The use of diagnostic and interventional ultrasound has significantly increased over the past decade. A majority of the increased utilisation is by non-radiologists. In sports medicine, ultrasound is often used to guide interventions such as aspirations, diagnostic or therapeutic injections, tenotomies, releases and hydrodissections. Objective Critically review the literature related to the accuracy, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided injections (USGIs) in major, intermediate and small joints; and soft tissues. Design Systematic review of the literature. Results USGIs are more accurate than landmark-guided injections (LMGIs; strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT) Evidence Rating=A). USGIs are more efficacious than LMGIs (SORT Evidence Rating=B). USGIs are more cost-effective than LMGIs (SORT Evidence Rating=B). Ultrasound guidance is required to perform many new procedures (SORT Evidence Rating=C). Conclusions The findings of this position statement indicate there is strong evidence that USGIs are more accurate than LMGI, moderate evidence that they are more efficacious and preliminary evidence that they are more cost-effective. Furthermore, ultrasound-guided (USG) is required to perform many new, advanced procedures and will likely enable the development of innovative USG surgical techniques in the future.

ObjectivesTo 1) describe and validate an ultrasound‐guided ischial bursa injection technique in an unembalmed cadaveric model and 2) to compare the distance between the ischial tuberosity and the sciatic nerve in a hip neutral versus 90° flexed hip position in asymptomatic volunteers.DesignThe first part was a single‐blind prospective study. The second part was a prospective cohort study.SettingAn academic institution procedural skills laboratory and outpatient clinic.ParticipantsThe first part of the study involved 1 cadaveric specimen. The second part of the study involved 20 asymptomatic subjects. The mean age of the subjects was 28 years, and the mean (standard deviation) body mass index was 23.2 ± 2.8 kg/m2 (minimum, 18.3 kg/m2; maximum, 29.5 kg/m2).MethodsIn the first part of the study, a single operator completed bilateral ultrasound‐guided ischial bursa injections in an unembalmed cadaveric specimen by using diluted colored latex. In the second part of the study, ultrasound was used in 20 asymptomatic volunteer subjects (10 men and 10 women) to measure the distance from the lateral edge of the ischial tuberosity to the sciatic nerve.Main Outcome MeasurementsThe injections were graded for accuracy as follows: accurate (all injectate contained within the ischial bursa), accurate with overflow (injectate within the ischial bursa but also located in adjacent structures other than the needle track), or inaccurate (injectate not within the ischial bursa). The second part of the study measured the distance from the ischial tuberosity to the sciatic nerve with subjects in 2 different positions (prone and side lying with the tested hip flexed to 90°).ResultsPostinjection cadaveric dissections revealed that both ultrasound‐guided injections accurately placed liquid latex within the ischial bursae. There was no evidence of injury to surrounding neurovascular structures. Among asymptomatic volunteers, the average distance between the ischial tuberosity and the sciatic nerve increased from 28.4 mm (range, 20.5‐38.9 mm) in the neutral position to 41.9 mm (range, 30.9‐66.0 mm) with the hip flexed to 90° (average change, 13.5 mm away from the ischial tuberosity; P = .0001).ConclusionsUltrasound‐guided ischial bursa injections are technically feasible. Flexing the hip to 90° increases the distance between the ischial tuberosity and the sciatic nerve in asymptomatic volunteers, thus potentially resulting in a safer needle trajectory when ischial bursa injections are clinically indicated. Further investigation in clinical settings is warranted to validate these findings.

Background: Invasive leg compartment testing may be performed to diagnose chronic exertional compartment syndrome. No prior study has assessed the accuracy of leg compartment needle tip access. Purpose: This study was undertaken to describe and determine the accuracy of palpation-guided and ultrasound-guided techniques for needle tip placement into the deep and superficial posterior leg compartments by a less experienced clinician and a more experienced clinician using a cadaveric model. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty unembalmed adult lower limb cadaveric specimens were used for the study. Two investigators, a sports medicine fellow with 10 months of musculoskeletal ultrasound experience and a staff physiatrist with 3 years of musculoskeletal ultrasound experience, each performed 1 palpation-guided and 1 ultrasound-guided colored latex dye injection into the deep and superficial posterior leg compartments of each cadaveric specimen. A blinded investigator dissected the specimens and graded them for accuracy. Results: The accuracy rates of palpation-guided (accuracy rate, 90%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 76%-97%) and ultrasound-guided (accuracy rate, 88%; 95% CI, 73%-95%) deep posterior compartment injections were statistically equivalent ( P = 1.000). All 80 injections performed into the superficial posterior compartment were accurate (accuracy rate, 100%; 95% CI, 89%-100%). The accuracy of the less experienced investigator (total injection accuracy rate, 88%; 95% CI, 73%-95%) and the more experienced investigator (total injection accuracy rate, 90%; 95% CI, 76%-97%) were not significantly different ( P = 1.000). Conclusion: Needle tip placement into the deep and superficial posterior leg compartments is relatively accurate with palpation guidance regardless of level of experience, and does not improve with the use of ultrasound guidance. Clinical Relevance: Ultrasound guidance does not appear to be indicated for routine deep or superficial posterior leg compartment pressure testing. However, this does not preclude the need for ultrasound guidance in selected clinical scenarios.

Objective.To determine why people do or do not wear helmets while bicycling.Methods.A survey was conducted from August through October 1999. Two survey areas were chosen for this study: local public schools and paved bicycle trails. For the school arm of the study, 3 public elementary, middle, and high schools were selected from 3 different regions of Rochester, Minnesota, for participation in the study. For the bicycle arm of the study, 3 paved trails located in southeastern Minnesota were selected. A total of 2970 surveys were distributed to the public school system, and 463 surveys were collected from bicyclists on the paved bicycle trails. The survey population was split into 3 age categories for analysis: child (7–10), adolescent (11–19), and adult (older than 19).Results.Of the 2970 surveys distributed to Rochester public schools, 2039 (69%) were returned for analysis. Seventy-eight of the surveys that were completed in the public school system were discarded for the following reasons: age <10 years (35), insufficient completion (24), and selection of every reason for not wearing a bicycle helmet (19). A total of 463 surveys were completed on the 3 paved bicycle trails. One survey from the paved bicycle trail arm of the study was discarded because of insufficient completion. The total number of surveys used for statistical analysis was 2424. The distribution of male (52.7%) and female (47.3%) participants was similar. No significant difference in bicycle helmet use was found between genders.The age groups with the highest rate of bicycle helmet use were 50 to 59 years (62%) and older than 59 years (70%). The age groups with the lowest rate of bicycle helmet use were 11 to 19 years (31%) and 30 to 39 years (30%). The most common reasons given for not wearing a bicycle helmet were “uncomfortable,” “annoying,” “it's hot,” “don't need it,” and “don't own one.” Bicycle helmet use was significantly influenced by peer helmet use in all 3 age groups. Children also were more likely to wear a bicycle helmet when their parents wore bicycle helmets.A majority of respondents in all 3 age groups indicated that bicycle helmets provided either “moderate” or “great” protection from head injury, although significantly more adults (65.9%) than adolescents (43.9%) believed that the protection afforded by bicycle helmets was “great.” Despite this belief, a majority of adolescents and adults indicated that there was only a “slight risk” of head injury when bicycling without a helmet. Participants in all 3 categories were more likely to wear a bicycle helmet when they indicated either that there was a “great risk” of head injury when bicycling without a helmet or that helmets provided “great protection” from head injury. Adolescents and adults who believed that bicycling without a helmet put one at “great risk” for head injury also were more likely to indicate that helmets provided “great protection” from head injury.Conclusions.The prevalence of bicycle helmet use remains low despite research indicating the high level of head injury risk when bicycling without a helmet and the significant protection afforded by bicycle helmets. With the information provided by this survey, a well-designed intervention to increase the use of bicycle helmets can be implemented. Suggestions for a campaign to promote an increase in bicycle helmet use include focusing efforts on males and females between 11 and 19 years and 30 and 39 years of age; educating the public on new bicycle helmet designs that address comfort, ventilation, and fashion; educating adolescents on the significant protection from head injury afforded by bicycle helmets; and educating the public on the risk and severity of head injury associated with bicycling without a helmet. The influence of parents and peers on bicycle helmet use may be targeted through education and statements such as, “If you wear a bicycle helmet, you are not only protecting yourself, you are also helping to protect your friends and/or children.” bicycle, helmet, injury, accident, prevention.