Objective: Knee arthrocentesis can be performed by landmark (LM) or ultrasound (US) guidance. The goal of performing knee arthrocentesis is to obtain synovial fluid, however, it is also important to consider the number of attempts required and accidental bone contacts that occur. This study evaluates procedural success without bone contact in knee arthrocentesis and compares both LM and US guided techniques in a cadaver model.
Methods: This was a randomized crossover study comparing US vs LM guidance for arthrocentesis in a single academic center. Volunteers were randomized to perform both LM and US guided knee arthrocentesis on cadavers. The primary outcome was procedural success, defined as first attempt aspiration of synovial fluid without bone contact. Secondary outcomes included number of attempts, number of bone contacts, time to aspiration, and confidence.
Results: Sixty-one participants completed the study with a total of 122 procedures performed. Procedural success without bone contact was greater in the US group (84% vs 64% p = 0.02). Time to aspiration was longer for US (38.75 s vs 25.54 s p = 0.004). Participants were more confident with US compared to LM both before the procedure on a Visual Analog Scale from 1 to 100 (29 vs 21 p = 0.03) as well as after the procedure (83 vs 69 p = 0.0001). Participants had a greater median increase in confidence with US following training (44 vs 26 p = 0.01).
Conclusions: Study participants had greater procedural success without bone contact when US guidance was used. The increase in confidence following training was greater for US guidance than the LM method. Use of US guidance may offer a benefit by allowing for better needle control and avoidance of sensitive structures for clinicians performing knee arthrocentesis.
Keywords: Arthrocentesis; Procedural guidance; Ultrasound.
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.