Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus & ISI's SCI  
Users online: 5273  
Home | Subscribe | Feedback | Login 
About Latest Articles Back-Issues Article Submission Resources Sections Etcetera Contact
 
  NAVIGATE Here 
  Search
 
  
 RESOURCE Links
 ::  Similar in PUBMED
 ::  Search Pubmed for
 ::  Search in Google Scholar for
 ::Related articles
 ::  Article in PDF (1,583 KB)
 ::  Citation Manager
 ::  Access Statistics
 ::  Reader Comments
 ::  Email Alert *
 ::  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free) 

  IN THIS Article
 ::  Abstract
 :: Introduction
 ::  Materials and Me...
 :: Results
 :: Discussion
 ::  References
 ::  Article Figures
 ::  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4554    
    Printed168    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded34    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal


 


 
  Table of Contents     
BRIEF REPORT
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 60  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 175-178

Intended intramuscular gluteal injections: Are they truly intramuscular?


Department of Radiology, Narayana Hrudayala and Muzumdar Cancer Center, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Date of Submission15-Sep-2013
Date of Decision07-Nov-2013
Date of Acceptance27-Feb-2014
Date of Web Publication13-May-2014

Correspondence Address:
Dr. L Dayananda
Department of Radiology, Narayana Hrudayala and Muzumdar Cancer Center, Bangalore, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0022-3859.132334

Rights and Permissions


 :: Abstract 

Context: In patients with obesity, intramuscular injections may be deposited subcutaneously due to an increase in gluteal fat. We aimed to use abdominal CT done in our institute for gluteal fat thickness to test our hypothesis. Materials and Methods: After IRB approval, CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis of the past 6 months were analyzed. The thickness of gluteal region subcutaneous fat was measured in a standardized manner. Results: Out of 700 CT scans, studied, 476 were males and 224 were females. The average gluteal fat thickness was 2.34 cm +/- 1 cm. The average fat thickness in males was 1.98 cm +/- 0.98 cm whereas in females was 3.0 cm +/- 1.2 cm. Subcutaneous granulomas were seen in 17 cases and one injection granuloma in the intramuscular plane. Conclusion: A significant number of female patients had increased gluteal fat thickness beyond the reach of routinely used needles. The medications in these patients will thus be unintentionally injected to subcutaneous plane, possibly altering the pharmacokinetics.


Keywords: Fat thickness, gluteal injection, granuloma


How to cite this article:
Dayananda L, Belaval V V, Raina A, Chandana R. Intended intramuscular gluteal injections: Are they truly intramuscular?. J Postgrad Med 2014;60:175-8

How to cite this URL:
Dayananda L, Belaval V V, Raina A, Chandana R. Intended intramuscular gluteal injections: Are they truly intramuscular?. J Postgrad Med [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Nov 18];60:175-8. Available from: http://www.jpgmonline.com/text.asp?2014/60/2/175/132334



 :: Introduction Top


Drugs are given via the parenteral route to increase the bioavailability and rapid onset of action. Intramuscular injections deliver drugs into well-perfused muscles, providing the former and also allowing for larger dose deposition. The gluteal region is a common site of administration of intramuscular injections. Plasma concentration of the injected drug varies depending on whether the drug reached muscle or fat. [1],[2] With an increasing incidence of obesity, there is concern regarding intended intramuscular injections reaching subcutaneous fat. The present study aimed to study the average fat thickness of the population presenting to our institute.


 :: Materials and Methods Top


Ethics

After IRB approval, data was anonymized and analyzed.

Study design

We retrospectively analyzed 700 abdominal CT scans done between June and December 2010.

Study methodology

The probable site of gluteal injections weree identified by three different methods. The first two methods of localization are ones developed by the author, based on clinical localization of injection site. [2] The dorsogluteal site of injection is initially identified on CT scanogram similar to clinical localization [Figure 1]a-c. The line joining the superior trochanter of the femur and superior part of the sacroiliac (SI) joint divides the gluteal region into superior-lateral and inferio-medial quadrants. A line is drawn perpendicular to this imaginary line at the midpoint which divides the supero-lateral quadrant of the gluteal region into upper and lower halves. The center of the upper half of the supero-lateral quadrant was localized on the scanogram. Using the 3D localization software the region was also localized on axial sections. Subcutaneous gluteal fat thickness was measured in the same plane.
Figure 1: Localization of the dorsogluteal site (a-c). Method by which injection site is localized is clinically is shown in (a). Corresponding scanogram localization is shown in (b) (*in Figure b). Using 3D localization software, site of injection is identified in axial sections (c) and subcutaneous fat thickness measured (double arrow). Localization of the dorsogluteal site (d-f): Method by which injection site is localized clinically is shown in (d). Corresponding scanogram localization is shown in (e) (*in Figure e). Using 3D localization software, site of injection is identified in axial sections (f) and subcutenous fat thickness measured (double arrow)

Click here to view


The ventrogluteal injection site was also localized on the scanogram in a method similar to clinical localization[Figure 1]d-f. A line was drawn from the center of the head of the femur to the anterior superior iliac spine. Another line was drawn vertically from the head of the femur to the superior most part of the iliac crest, thus forming a triangle. The center of the triangle was considered as the probable site of injection.

The third method was adapted [Figure 2]. [3] In this method a axial section of the CT scan was chosen which was 1 cm above the lowermost part of the SI joint. The subcutaneous fat thickness 5 cm away from the SI joint was considered as a probable site of gluteal injection.
Figure 2: Localization of the gluteal site localization adopted from Canadian Journal of Association of Radiologist (CARJ) (a and b). Section which is 1 cm above the lowermost point of the SI joint is identified (Y in Figure a). Corresponding axial section at the Y location showing site of injection which is 5 cm away from the SI joint. The subcutaneous fat thickness measured (red double arrow). (c) Length of the commonly used needle in our hospital. (d) The correlation between the fat thicknesses measured in the dorsogluteal site and venterogluteal site. (f) The correlation between the fat thicknesses measured by the dorsoglteal site localization method and CAJR method

Click here to view


Subcutaneous fat was measured by all three methods. Associated finding like subcutaneous granuloma, abscess or air due to gluteal injections was also noted. The lengths of the commonly used needles in our hospital were taken into consideration.

Statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics were used for demographic data. Measures of central tendency were used for gluteal fat. Agreement between assessments between the three measures was done using the kappa statistic.


 :: Results Top


Demographic data

Out of 700 CT studied, 476 were males and 224 were females. The age ranged from 3-91 years. These patients underwent CT studies for various abdominal complaints like pain evaluation, mesenteric ischemia, intra abdominal mass ,intra abdominal collection, infection etc.

Gluteal fat thickness

The average gluteal fat thickness was 2.34 cm +/- 1 cm. The gluteal fat thickness ranged from 0.3 mm to 7.3 cm. The average fat thickness in male was 1.98 cm whereas in female was 3.0 cm. Maximum fat recorded in our series was 7.3 cm in a 54-year-old female. Minimum fat thickness was 0.3 cm in a 17-year-old male.

Sub-age group analysis showed that the females between 20 and 40 years of age had thicker gluteal fat pads (3.4 cm) as compared to females of other age groups [Table 1]. It was found that 70% of the females were having gluteal fat thickness above the length of commonly used 20-G and 22-G needles. On the contrary, only 20% of the males were having fat thickness above the length of commonly used needles. No significant variations were seen in gluteal fat thickness in men of different age groups.
Table 1: Summary of gluteal fat thickness

Click here to view


Granulomas were seen in 18/ 0.02 % cases. All the granulomas were seen in the subcutaneous plane except for one granuloma which was in the muscular plane [Figure 3] and [Figure 4].
Figure 3: (a) Axial CT section in patient with 7.3-cm fat thickness measured by the venterogluteal site localization method. (b) Axial CT section showing the inflammation in the subcutaneous plane due to injection (arrow). Partially calcified granuloma is shown (arrow in Figure c) and ring-like calcification in another patient (arrow in Figure d). Difference in the site of measurement between the dorsogluteal site and venterogluteal site (d) (medial measurement done by dorsogluteal site localization method)

Click here to view
Figure 4: Intramuscular air due to injection in a patient with a gluteal fat thickness of 1.35 cm. Another patient with intramuscular granuloma with a fat thickness of 1.5 cm. A patient with chronic calcific pancreatitis (black arrow in c) showing extensive gluteal inflammation due to analgesic injection addiction (white arrows in d)

Click here to view



 :: Discussion Top


Muscles have rich vascular supply in contrary to subcutaneous fat which is relatively less vascular. [4] The bioavailability of the subcutaneous injections is different from that of drugs injected intramuscularly. This is because the intramuscularly injected drugs are absorbed better. Subcutaneous root of injection s preferred only when slow and sustained action is desired. [4],[5] Dorsogluteal injections are associated with increased possibility of damaging the sciatic nerve as compared to the ventrogluteal site. Hence, the ventrogluteal site is preferred. [2]

The length of the commonly used 22-G and 20-G needle in our hospital is 25 mm. We presume that that a fat thickness more than 25 mm results in subcutaneous deposition, without considering the compressibility of fat into account. Since 70% of female population in our study did have subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness more than 2.5 cm, gluteal injection in these individuals are likely to have been subcutaneous. On the other hand, only in 20% of male population these needles would have reached the intramuscular plane.

The average fat thickness was more in females of 20-40 years age group as compared to other age groups. About 70% of the females between 20 and 40 age group have muscles beyond the reach of the blue and green needles. On the contrary, only 20% of males have fat thickness above the reach of the blue and green needle.

Vukovitch et al. reported sex difference in absorption and bioavailability of the cephadrine injected in the gluteal region. [6] and concluded that the sex difference was related to greater thickness of the subcutaneous fat in female.

Three different methods were employed in our study to measure the fat thickness in various locations of the gluteal region. There is very good correlation (k +0.61) between the various methods suggesting that the distribution of the fat is more or less uniform all over the posterior quadrants of the gluteal region. In our observation gluteal adipose tissue is thicker in the extreme lateral aspects of the buttock which is not measured by any of the three methods. All patients with granulomas had a history of prior gluteal injections, suggesting that the injections were the likely cause for granulomas. We assume that the absorption of the injected drug plays a major role in granuloma formation and that poor absorption is the cause for granuloma. [1] Due to lack of patient details, further analysis was not done. Limitations of the study were not taking compressibility of the fat into account, not studying causes of granuloma, not using BMI, and lack of healthy controls. These could be addressed in a prospective study.

 
 :: References Top

1.Haramati N, Lorans R, Lutwin M, Kaleya RN. Injection granulomas. Intramuscle or intrafat? Arch Fam Med 1994;3:146-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Workman B. Safe injection techniques. Nurs Stand 1999;13:47-54.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Burbridge BE. Computed tomographic measurement of gluteal subcutaneous fat thickness in reference to failure of gluteal intramuscular injections. Can Assoc Radiol J 2007;58:72-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.Evans EF, Proctor JD, Fratkin MJ, Velandia J, Wasserman AJ. Blood flow in muscle groups and drug absorption. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1975;17:44-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.Nisbet AC. Intramuscular gluteal injections in the increasingly obese population: Retrospective study. BMJ 2006;332:637-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.Vukovich RA, Brannick LJ, Sugerman AA, Neiss ES. Sex differences in the intramuscular absorption and bioavailability of cephradine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1975;18:215-20.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]

This article has been cited by
1 A Review of the Toxicologic Implications of Obesity
Matthew Zuckerman,Howard A Greller,Kavita M Babu
Journal of Medical Toxicology. 2015; 11(3): 342
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Administering intramuscular injections: How does research translate into practice over time in the mental health setting?
Dianne Wynaden,Jenny Tohotoa,Omar AL Omari,Brenda Happell,Karen Heslop,Lesley Barr,Vijay Sourinathan
Nurse Education Today. 2015; 35(4): 620
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 
Online since 12th February '04
2004 - Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
Official Publication of the Staff Society of the Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow