Comparison of radiological and clinical results of knee intra-articular injections with two ultrasonography-guided approach techniques: A randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of intra-articular injections performed with two different ultrasound-guided approaches in knee osteoarthritis. Patients and methods: The randomized controlled study was conducted on 80 knees of 40 patients (9 males, 31 females; mean age: 63.6±8.2 years; range, 46 to 78 years) with Grade 2-3 gonarthrosis that underwent ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections with suprapatellar (SP) or infrapatellar (IP) approaches between March 2020 and January 2021. After the injection, opaque material spread was fluoroscopically observed. Before the procedure and at the one and three months after the procedure, patients' Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores for functional recovery were recorded. Results: In both techniques, one- and three-month VAS and WOMAC scores were found to be significantly lower (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). Of the patients with positive opaque spread, 63.3% were in the IP technique group, and 36.7% were in the SP technique group (p=0.003). In 69.2% of those with radiologically positive opaque spread, the VAS score was significantly higher with >50% regression (p=0.04). In the IP technique, >50% regression rate of the VAS was 86.7% in patients with positive opaque spread, while VAS regression was significantly higher than those without opaque spread (p=0.02). Conclusion: Although the IP approach shows an early-positive opaque transition due to its proximity to the joint, both approach techniques are clinically effective under ultrasound guidance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".