Comparison of the Effectiveness of Portable Ultrasound vs Portable X-Ray as Diagnostic Imaging of Knee Structures in Clinical Medicine

Main Article Content

Samira Abdul Wajid
Samith Ahmed
Vaugn Devera
Devin Dickerson
Austin Thompson
Julia Villela

Abstract

Background: Imaging techniques are providing physicians an opportunity to ensure more accurate diagnostics. While MRI and CT are the gold standard diagnostic tools, they are not utilized as primary diagnostic tools due to their size, immobility, and exposure to radiation. It is not always feasible or practical to wait for a technician in an emergency department to conduct these examinations. As technology continues to advance, diagnostic tools are becoming more portable. X-ray and ultrasound are utilized to diagnose, as well as exclude potential causes of illness. Our objective is to determine which diagnostic tool is more efficient in diagnosing patella/knee injuries.

Methods: This systematic review aims to determine which diagnostic tool is more efficient at diagnosing injuries. By collecting and reviewing existing research to compare the limitations of injury detection, the accessibility and portability of both diagnostic machines, the safety in regards to radiation exposure to patient and physician, the reliability of the diagnoses, and the costs of each machine

Results: Of the reviewed articles, 58% of the articles focusing on knee injuries indicated that ultrasound imaging is a superior diagnostic instrument due to its efficacy and accessibility. When comparing ultrasound to x-ray directly, it was shown that ultrasound is a more precise diagnostic tool.

Conclusion: Ultrasound imaging is a more effective diagnostic tool than x-ray. It is better able to diagnose bone, soft tissue, and vessel injuries. It is a safer tool for both the patient and the physician because it uses sound rather than radiation to produce an image. It is also more accessible as advances in technology have made portable ultrasounds a protocol for quick assessments of injuries.

Keywords:
Portable ultrasound, portable x-ray, benefits, disadvantages, limitations, cost, accessibility, bone, joints

Article Details

How to Cite
Wajid, S. A., Ahmed, S., Devera, V., Dickerson, D., Thompson, A., & Villela, J. (2020). Comparison of the Effectiveness of Portable Ultrasound vs Portable X-Ray as Diagnostic Imaging of Knee Structures in Clinical Medicine. Journal of Advances in Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 22(6), 41-50. https://doi.org/10.9734/jamps/2020/v22i630178
Section
Systematic Review Article

References

Scatliff JH, Morris PJ. From Röntgen to Magnetic Resonance Imaging. N C Med J.2014;75(2):111–3.

Bedson J, Croft PR. The discordance between clinical and radiographic knee osteoarthritis: A systematic search and summary of the literature. BMC MusculoskeletDisord. 2008;9(1):116.

Horng A, Brun E, MittoneA et al. Cartilage and Soft Tissue Imaging Using X-rays: propagation-based phase-contrast computed tomography of the human knee in comparison with clinical imaging techniques and histology. Invest Radiol 2014;49(9):627–34.

Naylor JM, Ko V, Adie S et al. Validity and reliability of using photography for measuring knee range of motion: a methodological study. BMC MusculoskeletDisord. 2011;12(1):77.

Campbell S. A short history of sonography in obstetrics and gynaecology. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2013;5(3):213–29.

Wagner M. Ultrasound: More Harm than Good? Midwifery Today Int Midwife1999;(50):28-30.

Chung A. Knee Anatomy, Function and Common Problems. Health Pages; 2019.

Bahl A, Bagan M, Joseph S et al. Comparison of ultrasound and plain radiography for the detection of long-bone fractures. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2018;11(2):115-8.

Bureau NJ, Ziegler D. Economics of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound. CurrRadiol Rep. 2016;4(8):44.

Pereira CS, Santos R, Whiteley R et al. Reliability and methodology of quantitative assessment of harvested and unharvested patellar tendons of ACL injured athletes using ultrasound tissue characterization. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2019;11:12.

Pardo E, El Behi H, Boizeau P et al. Reliability of ultrasound measurements of quadriceps muscle thickness in critically ill patients. BMC anesthesiology 2018;18(1):205.

Elias A, Le Corff G, BouvierJLet al. Value of real time B mode ultrasound imaging in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis of the lower limbs. IntAngiol. 1987;6:175-82.

Cook J, Kiss Z, Khan K et al. Prospective imaging study of asymptomatic patellar tendinopathy in elite junior basketball players. J Ultrasound Med 2000;19: 473– 9.

Halupa AJ, Strony RJ, Bulbin DH et al. Pseudogoutdiagnosed by point-of-care ultrasound. ClinPract Cases Emerg Med. 2014;3(4):425–7.

Kandel M, Cattrysse E, De Maeseneer M et al. Inter-rater reliability of an ultrasound protocol to evaluate the anterolateral ligament of the knee. J Ultrason 2019;19(78):181–6.

Gray H, Guan S, Young T et al. Comparison of posterior‐stabilized, cruciate‐retaining, and medial-stabilized knee implant motion during gait. Journal Orthopaedic Research; 2020.

Shearer T, Rawson S, Castro S et al. X-ray computed tomography of the anterior cruciate ligament and patellar tendon. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2014;4(2):238–44.

Czyrny Z. Standards for musculoskeletal ultrasound. J Ultrason. 2017;17(70):182–7.

Zampogna B, Vasta S, AmendolaA et al. Assessing lower limb alignment: comparison of standard knee x-ray vs long leg view. Iowa Orthop J. 2015;35:49-54.