Peer-reviewed research · Regenerative medicine · Glastonbury, CT
Verified, PubMed-indexed and peer-reviewed publications from Dr. Tortland's work in sports medicine, regenerative medicine, orthobiologics and musculoskeletal ultrasound, alongside the current investigations that inform how procedures are performed here.
Why this page exists
Regenerative medicine is an area where marketing frequently outpaces evidence. Everything listed here is citable: peer-reviewed publications with PubMed identifiers, technical studies, and clearly labelled clinical investigation that has not been peer reviewed. Patients and referring clinicians should be able to check the sources behind a recommendation, and to see where the evidence is strong, where it is mixed, and where it is still being worked out. This practice has also partnered with DataBiologics, a HIPAA-compliant regenerative medicine outcomes registry, for years to systematically track patient-reported outcomes, with validated surveys collected before treatment, during recovery, and again months later, building a long-term, real-world evidence base rather than relying on anecdote.
Publications
Peer-reviewed & indexed
Research focus
Platelet dose & cellular yield
Teaching since
2009 · 8 to 10 courses a year
Recognition
Caplan Excellence Award, 2024
Peer-reviewed publications
Each entry links to the source. Identifiers are included so any claim on this site can be traced back to its publication.
01
02
03
04
Current research · Translational work
Current clinical investigation examines platelet dose and concentration, PRP processing variables, bone-marrow aspiration technique, cellular yield and ultrasound-guided procedural precision.
The ongoing PRP investigation emphasizes platelet dose, not simply injection volume, as a critical variable when comparing PRP preparations and interpreting published clinical studies.
An N=1 head-to-head comparison of Exo Advantage against another PRP system, controlling blood draw, processing conditions and technician, with the resulting PRP measured by hemocytometry. This is clinical investigation, not a peer-reviewed clinical trial.
View the documented comparison →
The Technique Matters work investigates how aspiration variables (draw size, needle repositioning, geography within the marrow space, and pace) influence progenitor-cell yield.
Read Technique Matters →
This work connects diagnosis, anatomy and precise needle guidance to orthobiologic procedures. Dr. Tortland has used MSK ultrasound clinically since 2008 and taught it since 2009.
Teaching & speaking →
Recognition
Dr. Tortland was the 2024 inaugural recipient of the Caplan Excellence Award, named in honor of Arnold Caplan, for his educational contributions to regenerative medicine.
Scholarly focus & teaching
The scholarly work centers on making non-surgical musculoskeletal care more precise.
It spans sports medicine, musculoskeletal ultrasound, orthobiologics, regenerative medicine and ultrasound-guided procedures, and includes peer-reviewed articles, literature reviews, technical studies and textbook chapters addressing orthobiologic procedures, nerve injections and bone-marrow aspiration technique.
Dr. Tortland teaches physicians in sports medicine, musculoskeletal ultrasound and regenerative medicine, emphasizing anatomy, diagnosis, imaging, patient selection, procedural precision and the appropriate use of orthobiologic treatments.
MSK ultrasound · Procedural precision
Ultrasound is more than a way to guide a needle. It lets a physician evaluate anatomy and pathology in real time, select the appropriate target, and watch the needle reach it.
17
Systematic reviews synthesized
A 2024 umbrella review found greater accuracy with ultrasound guidance across common injection sites.
95.4% vs 82.0%
Knee injection accuracy
Cumulative accuracy for ultrasound-guided versus landmark-guided knee injections and aspirations, Level I review of 13 studies.
2008
Clinical ultrasound since
Teaching diagnostic and interventional MSK ultrasound to physicians since 2009, with roughly 8 to 10 courses a year.
What it means for you
The practical distinction is straightforward. A landmark-guided injection relies on surface anatomy and palpation to estimate where the needle should go. Ultrasound guidance lets the physician see the relevant structures and the needle itself, in real time, as the medication is delivered.
Systematic reviews consistently find ultrasound-guided musculoskeletal injections to be more accurate than landmark- or blind-guided injections, although improvements in pain and function vary by joint, condition and study. Ultrasound does not guarantee a better outcome in every case, but greater procedural accuracy is a substantial advantage whenever precise targeting matters.
Evidence & further reading
The literature generally finds that ultrasound guidance improves injection accuracy compared with landmark or "blind" technique, while improvements in pain and function vary by joint, condition and procedure. These studies support the value of image guidance for precision, not a guarantee of a better outcome in every patient.
2024 · Umbrella review
A synthesis of 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses found ultrasound-guided injections were generally more accurate than landmark-guided injections, particularly at the shoulder, with additional benefits varying by joint and outcome.
Read on PubMed →
Systematic review · Knee
A Level I systematic review of 13 studies reported cumulative accuracy of 95.4% for ultrasound-guided knee injections and aspirations, versus 82.0% with landmark guidance.
Read on PubMed →
2015 · Meta-analysis
Ultrasound-guided intra-articular and periarticular injections were more accurate than landmark-guided injections; short-term pain outcomes also favored ultrasound guidance, while longer-term differences were less certain.
Read on PubMed →
Systematic review · Hip
A systematic review and meta-analysis found weighted mean accuracy of 100% for ultrasound-guided hip injections, compared with 72% for landmark-guided injections.
Read on PubMed →
Systematic review · Shoulder
Ultrasound guidance improved accuracy for several shoulder targets, including the acromioclavicular joint, biceps tendon sheath and glenohumeral joint, with clinical benefit varying by injection site.
Read on PubMed →
Systematic review · Arthrocentesis
Across nine studies involving 715 adults, ultrasound-guided knee arthrocentesis showed higher accuracy, lower procedural pain and greater aspiration volume than landmark-guided procedures.
Read on PubMed →
Citations are provided so patients and clinicians can read the primary sources directly. Study findings describe populations, not individuals; accuracy is one determinant of outcome among several, including diagnosis, patient selection, tissue quality and rehabilitation. Nothing on this page is medical advice or a promise of a particular result.
Frequently asked
This page is written for patient and clinician education and does not constitute medical advice or establish a physician-patient relationship. Orthobiologic procedures are not FDA-approved drug therapies; they are performed as autologous same-day procedures under the practice of medicine. Work described as clinical investigation has not undergone peer review and is labelled as such.
The sources on this page are here so patients and clinicians can evaluate the evidence themselves. To discuss how it applies to your condition, request a consultation.