RESUMEN
AIM OF THE STUDY: Arthroscopy ranks among the frequently performed interventions in orthopedics. The aim of this study was to compare the palpation technique with the ultrasound technique for locating the dorsal glenohumeral joint space (JS) in shoulder joint punctures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants inexperienced in ultrasound examinations were included. Palpatory and ultrasound finding of the joint space by the participants was performed according to current recommendations and was initially demonstrated by an instructional video. The ideal point (IP) was marked under ultrasound visualization by an experienced ultrasound examinator and shoulder-elbow surgeon. Furthermore, a corridor for a safe puncture was defined. The palpatorily determined point (pdP) was marked by the participants and evaluated by means of a coordinate system. The evaluation of the sonographically determined point (sdP) was performed similarly to that of the palpatory procedure. RESULTS: Fifty-four participants were included in the study, and the mean length of work experience was 6.3 years. On average, participants had performed 16.5 punctures of the shoulder joint and 6.8 arthroscopies of the shoulder joint. The mean experience in performing sonographic examinations of the shoulder was 27.6 examinations. A total of 100 shoulder joints were examined (54 left, 46 right shoulders). The mean deviation from the ideal point (IP) for the palpatory approach was 17.1 mm with a maximum deviation of 59.5 mm; for the sonographic technique, the mean deviation was 10.3 mm (max. 30.2 mm). Overall, 22% of pdPs were within the defined corridor, while 42% of sdPs were within the target corridor. The average difference between palpatory and sonographic approaches was 9.0 mm in favor of the sonographic technique (max. 46.5 mm). A significantly greater deviation (p < 0.001) from the IP was observed with the palpatory approach than with the sonographic approach. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, the authors recommend ultrasound imaging of the shoulder joint as well as ultrasound-assisted punctures, especially for inexperienced users. Furthermore, training in ultrasound-assisted interventions should be implemented in future training curricula.
RESUMEN
Purpose Arthroscopy is one of the most common interventions in orthopedics. Hence it is important to train users early in order to ensure the safest possible identification of access portals (AP). This prospective study aimed to compare a palpatory (PalpMethod) with a sonographic (SonoMethod) method for AP location in the shoulder and knee joints. Materials and Methods The study included trainee doctors (n=68) attending workshops (lasting approx. 90 minutes). In these workshops a teaching video initially demonstrated the PalpMethod and SonoMethod of AP identification. An experienced operator first marked the access portals on the test subject with a UV pen (determined ideal point [DIP]). Adhesive film was then affixed to the puncture regions. Subsequently participants marked on shoulders and knees first the point determined by palpation, then the point determined by sonography. Analysis involved DIP visualization with a UV lamp and employed a coordinate system around the central DIP. In addition, participants completed an evaluation before and after the workshop. Results The analysis included 324 measurements (n=163 shoulders and n= 161 knees). The majority of participants had not previously attended any courses on manual examination (87.9%) or musculoskeletal ultrasound (93.9%). Overall, the markings participants made on the shoulder using the SonoMethod were significantly closer to the DIP than those made by the PalpMethod (Palp 18.8mm ± 14.5mm vs. Sono 11.2mm ± 7.2mm; p<0.001). On the knee, however, the markings made by the PalpMethod were significantly closer to the DIP overall (Palp 8.0mm ± 3.2mm vs. Sono 12.8mm ± 5.2mm; p<0.001). Conclusion The results show that the SonoMethod produces more accurate markings on the shoulder, while the PalpMethod is superior for the knee.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: ultrasound diagnostics have a broad spectrum of applications, including among diseases of the musculoskeletal system. Accordingly, it is important for the users to have a well-founded and up-to-date education in this dynamic examination method. The right balance between online and in-class teaching still needs to be explored in this context. Certifying institutions are currently testing digitally transformed teaching concepts to provide more evidence. METHODS: this study compared two musculoskeletal ultrasound blended learning models. Model A was more traditional, with a focus on in-person teaching, while Model B was more digitally oriented with compulsory webinar. Both used e-learning for preparation. Participants completed evaluations using a seven-point Likert scale, later converted to a 0-1 scale. Digital teaching media (e-learning) were used for preparation in both courses. RESULTS: the analysis included n = 41 evaluations for Model A and n = 30 for Model B. Model B received a better overall assessment (median: 0.73 vs. 0.69, p = 0.05). Model B also excelled in "course preparation" (p = 0.02), "webinar quality" (p = 0.04), and "course concept" (p = 0.04). The "gain of competence" (p = 0.82), "learning materials" (p = 0.30), and "tutor quality" (p = 0.28) showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: participants favorably assessed blended learning in ultrasound teaching. Certifying institutions should consider accrediting models that combine digital methods (e.g., internet lectures/webinars) and materials (e.g., e-learning) with hands-on ultrasound training. Further research is needed to validate these subjective findings for a stronger evidential basis.