LAUSR

Imaging guidance gives the opportunity to visualize a needle or other instrument when performing interventions on musculoskeletal sites in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Studies assessing the role of imaging guided procedures have been performed, however, no consensus has been made yet about when and which imaging techniques to use for these interventions.To inform a EULAR taskforce on the current literature on different imaging techniques, procedures and materials to guide interventions on musculoskeletal sites in RMD patients.Prospective and retrospective studies published in English and comparing either palpation or imaging guided interventions in patients with RMDs were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos were searched through October 2021. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool for randomized trials version 2 (ROB2), the RoB tool for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) and the appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies (AXIS).Sixty-six studies, with moderate to high RoB, consisting of 49 randomized controlled trials, three prospective cohort studies and 14 retrospective studies were included.Fifty-one studies compared one imaging technique against either another imaging technique, or palpation-guided interventions. Most of the studies were on peripheral joints (47/51), while data on joints of the axial skeleton were scare and heterogeneous (4/51). For peripheral joints, ultrasound (US) was the most studied imaging technique (49/51), followed by fluoroscopy (10/51). Results revealed a higher accuracy and safety (including procedural pain) of US or fluoroscopy compared to palpation- guided interventions. Data on other imaging techniques was scarce (computed tomography: n=3, arthroscopy: n=1) and the results heterogeneous. Results of studies comparing different imaging techniques (12/51) did not favor one imaging method over another.Three studies comparing different materials used for imaging guided interventions were found (e.g. automatic vs manual syringes), showing little evidence for one material being superior to another one.Fifteen studies were found comparing different imaging guided procedures (e.g. intraarticular vs periarticular injections). Overall, studies indicated an advantage of targeted vs. not targeted interventions (intraarticular vs periarticular or intraepineurial vs extraepineurial injections) concerning pain levels, while the comparison of different puncture sites to inject (e.g. ulnar vs midline carpal tunnel injection) was inconclusive.Imaging guidance, especially US, performs favorably for interventions at the peripheral joints compared to palpation-guided interventions, concerning accuracy and safety. Data for the axial skeleton are scarce. Imaging guided targeted interventions may lead to better outcomes than non-targeted interventions.None declared.