Factors affecting successful ultrasound‐guided injection into the podotrochlear bursa using a palmarolateral approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate potential factors affecting ultrasonographic visibility of the suprasesamoidean region and the success rate of ultrasound-guided injection (USGI) into the podotrochlear bursa (PB). STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo, experimental study. ANIMALS: 24 cadaveric forelimbs. METHODS: The PB was distended with 0, 1, or 2 ml of iodinated contrast material and saline under radiographic guidance. Ultrasonographic visibility of the suprasesamoidean region and PB was graded before and after distention with the limb loaded in three positions (vertical, cranial and caudal). Two operators with different experience levels performed an USGI into the PB with methylene blue (12 limbs each [four limbs with each of three volumes of PB distension]) using a palmarolateral approach and caudal foot placement. Limbs were frozen and sectioned to assess accuracy. RESULTS: Ultrasonographic visibility scores of the suprasesamoidean region (p = .0081) and PB (p < .0001) were improved using a caudal foot placement. Higher visibility grades of the suprasesamoidean region were associated with higher injection success rate (p = .047). The injection success was 75% (9/12) for the experienced versus 41.6% (5/12) for the less experienced operator (p = .14). PB distension improved visibility during caudal foot placement (p = .013) but not injection success rates (p = .78). CONCLUSION: Caudal foot placement enhances visibility of the PB and suprasesamoidean region. Limbs with poor visibility of the suprasesamoidean region are more likely to undergo a failed USGI. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The lateral USGI approach should be performed only in cases of optimal visibility. The reported success rates support the technical challenge of PB injections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".