Practice of ultrasound-guided arthrocentesis and joint injection, including training and implementation, in Europe: Results of a survey of experts and scientific societies

Peter Mandl, Esperanza Naredo, Philip G. Conaghan, Maria Antonietta D'Agostino, Richard J. Wakefield, Artur Bachta, Marina Backhaus, Hilde B. Hammer, George A.W. Bruyn, Nemanja Damjanov, Emilio Filippucci, Walter Grassi, Annamaria Iagnocco, Sandrine Jousse-Joulin, David Kane, Juhani M. Koski, Ingrid Möller, Eugenio De Miguel, Wolfgang A. Schmidt, Wijnand A.A. SwenMarcin Szkudlarek, Lene Terslev, Hans Rudolf Ziswiler, Mikkel Østergaard, Peter V. Balint

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To document the practice and training opportunities of US-guided arthrocentesis and joint injection (UGAJ) among rheumatologists in the member countries of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). Methods: An English-language questionnaire, containing questions on demographics, clinical and practical aspects of UGAJ, training options in UGAJ for rheumatologists, UGAJ education in the rheumatology training curriculum and other structured education programmes in UGAJ was sent to three different groups: (i) all national rheumatology societies of EULAR; (ii) all national societies of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB); and (iii) 22 senior rheumatologists involved in EULAR musculoskeletal US training from 14 European countries, who were also asked to circulate the questionnaire among relevant colleagues. Results: Thirty-three (75%) of 44 countries responded to the questionnaire (61.3% of national rheumatology societies, 25% of the national US societies and 100% of expert ultrasonographers). In the majority of countries (85%) <10% of rheumatologists routinely perform UGAJ in clinical practice, while the remaining countries (15%) reported a rate of 10-50%. The percentage of rheumatologists receiving training in UGAJ was <10% in the majority (72.7%) of countries. Conclusion: The study highlights the relatively low prevalence of UGAJ as compared with the high (>80%) rate of rheumatologists performing conventional joint injection in most of the surveyed countries. The reported variations in practice and the lack of available structured training programmes for trainees in most countries indicates the need for standardization in areas including training guidelines.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberker331
Pages (from-to)184-190
Number of pages7
JournalRheumatology
Volume51
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2012

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Education
  • Europe
  • Musculoskeletal ultrasound
  • Training
  • Ultrasound-guided arthrocentesis
  • Ultrasound-guided joint injection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rheumatology
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Mandl, P., Naredo, E., Conaghan, P. G., D'Agostino, M. A., Wakefield, R. J., Bachta, A., Backhaus, M., Hammer, H. B., Bruyn, G. A. W., Damjanov, N., Filippucci, E., Grassi, W., Iagnocco, A., Jousse-Joulin, S., Kane, D., Koski, J. M., Möller, I., De Miguel, E., Schmidt, W. A., ... Balint, P. V. (2012). Practice of ultrasound-guided arthrocentesis and joint injection, including training and implementation, in Europe: Results of a survey of experts and scientific societies. Rheumatology, 51(1), 184-190. [ker331]. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ker331