Ultrasound‐guided injection of the hip: Cadaveric description for the lateral approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound (US)-guided intraarticular hip joint injections are commonly performed using an in-plane anterior approach, which has several limitations. OBJECTIVE: To describe and report a "lateral" (lateral to medial) approach for US-guided intraarticular hip injection. DESIGN: Cadaveric investigation. SETTING: Academic institution, department of anatomy. PARTICIPANTS: One cadaveric specimen. METHODS: Both hips of a single cadaver were injected using the US-guided lateral approach. In the left hip, the needle was inserted and kept in situ. The right hip was injected with white-colored water-diluted latex dye. Subsequently, a layer-by-layer anatomical dissection was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presence and distribution of latex dye and location of needle tip within the joint capsule of the hip. RESULTS: Anatomical dissection of the left and right hips confirmed the correct intraarticular position of the needle tip and the placement of the latex dye, respectively. During layer-by-layer dissection of the left hip, positions of the lateral cutaneous nerve and the lateral circumflex femoral artery were observed anterior to the needle, 30 mm for the nerve and 8 mm for the artery. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study demonstrated that the US-guided lateral approach is a convenient technique to access the hip joint in a cadaveric specimen. Compared with the "classical" anterior technique, the lateral approach may provide several advantages, including improved needle visibility, theoretically decreased risk of vascular injury, and less risk of needle contamination. Because injury to the lateral epiphyseal arteries is possible when lateral approach is used, caution is required, especially in children. These preliminary conclusions will need to be validated in future/larger clinical studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".