Ultrasound‐guided injections for the retrotrochanteric region: A cadaveric investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Injections for the piriformis and triceps coxae tendons/bursae have not been described and validated. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the deep retrotrochanteric anatomy and validate an ultrasound (US)-guided injection technique. METHODS: Fifteen sides of the pelvic half/lower limb of formalin-fixed cadaveric specimens were dissected to investigate the deep retrotrochanteric region. An US-guided superficial/peritendinous green latex dye injection was performed on both sides of a single full body cadaver. Next, seven sides of another four full body cadavers were injected using a deep/intrabursal technique. The cadavers were dissected to observe the dye's location. RESULTS: In the anatomical part of the study, we observed a consistent fusion of the piriformis tendon (PT) with the triceps coxae tendon (TCT) (15/15), and with the gluteus medius tendon in 93% (14/15). A bursa of piriformis was identified in 80% (12/15) of the cases, and a subtendinous bursa of obturator internus was found in 73% (11/15). A fat pad overlying the PT-TCT was present in 93% (14/15) of the cases. Regarding the US-guided injections, success rate for superficial/peritendinous injection was 0% (0/2), with the latex dye being identified in the fat pad covering the PT-TCT in both cases. For the deep/intrabursal injection, the success rate was 86% (6/7). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated a satisfactory success rate for the deep/intrabursal injection of PT-TCT in retrotrochanteric pain syndrome. This technique holds promise for the treatment of bursa and tendon pathologies in relevant patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".