Accuracy of anterior glenohumeral injections: a cadaver study

Randomized Controlled Study of a Training Program for Knee and Shoulder Arthrocentesis on Procedural Simulators with Assessment on Cadavers

Objective

The study objective was to assess the efficacy of simulators in improving the competence of students in performing a knee and shoulder arthrocentesis on cadavers and to determine the minimum number of simulator training procedures needed to achieve competence in arthrocentesis.

Methods

Two groups of 15 medical students were each trained to perform a single joint arthrocentesis (“knee group” and “shoulder group”) on a simulator to serve as a control for the other. The two groups received the same theoretical training (anatomy, arthrocentesis techniques, ultrasound, and hybrid simulation). Each student punctured the two joints on a cadaver. A student was considered “competent on the cadaver” if they succeeded at two or more arthrocentesis procedures out of the three tests on the joint on which they were trained. The minimum threshold value to be competent was calculated by a receiver operating characteristic curve and the Youden index. An assessment of theoretical knowledge and confidence level in joint arthrocentesis was carried out at the start and end of the study.

Results

Twenty‐two out of 29 students (75.8%) achieved competence in arthrocentesis at the joint for which they were trained. Of the students in the knee group, 79% were competent on the cadaver’s knee versus 60% of the students in the shoulder group (P = 0.43). Of students in the shoulder group, 74% were competent on the cadaver’s shoulder versus 57% of students in the knee group (P = 0.45). Four training punctures on a simulator are necessary to achieve competence on a cadaver. The students’ confidence level in arthrocentesis increased significantly during the study, as did the students’ theoretical knowledge.

Conclusion

Knee and shoulder arthrocentesis success rates were not statistically different between the two training groups. A minimum number of 4.0 training arthrocentesis on a simulator is needed to achieve competency on a cadaver.

Is the Anterior Injection Approach Without Ultrasound Guidance Superior to the Posterior Approach for Adhesive Capsulitis of the Shoulder? A Sequential, Prospective Trial

BACKGROUND

Shoulder injections for conditions such as adhesive capsulitis are commonly performed and can be administered through image-based or landmark-based injection approaches. Ultrasound-guided injections are widely used and accurate because ultrasound allows real-time visualization of the needle and injected contrast. Landmark-based injections would be advantageous, if they were accurate, because they would save the time and expense associated with ultrasound. However, few prospective studies have compared well-described landmark-based shoulder injection techniques without ultrasound.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

Using anatomic landmarks, and without using ultrasound, is the accuracy of glenohumeral injection for adhesive capsulitis greater via the posterior approach or via a new anterior approach?

METHODS

Between 2018 and 2020, we treated 108 patients potentially eligible for adhesive capsulitis treatment. These patients had clinical symptoms of aggravating shoulder pain with a duration of less than 4 months and passively impaired, painful glenohumeral ROM. Due to the exclusion of patients with other shoulder conditions (full-thickness rotator cuff ruptures and posttraumatic stiffness), 95 patients received an injection in this sequential, prospective, comparative study. Between 2018 and 2019, 41 patients (17 males and 24 females; mean age 52 ± 5 years; mean BMI 24 ± 3 kg/m2) were injected through the posterior approach, with the acromion as the anatomical landmark, during the first part of the study period. After that, between 2019 and 2020, 54 patients (20 males and 34 females; mean age 54 ± 4 years; mean BMI 23 ± 3 kg/m2) received an injection through a new anterior approach, with the acromioclavicular joint as the anatomic landmark, during the second part of the study period. Injections via both approaches were administered by two experienced shoulder specialists (both with more than 10 years of experience). Both specialists had experience with the posterior approach before this study, and neither had previous training with the new anterior approach. Injections contained a corticosteroid, local anaesthetic, and contrast medium. Radiographs were taken within 20 minutes after the injection, and a radiologist blinded to the technique determined accuracy. Accurate injections were defined as having contrast fluid limited to the glenohumeral joint, while inaccurate injections displayed leakage of contrast fluid into the soft tissue or subacromial space. All of the enrolled patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

In the group with the posterior approach, the accuracy was 78% (32 of 41) in contrast to 94% (51 of 54, odds ratio 0.21 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.83]; p = 0.03) in patients with the new anterior approach.

CONCLUSION

The new anterior approach without the use of ultrasound was more accurate than the posterior approach. In fact, it was nearly as accurate as previously published ultrasound-guided approaches. We recommend using the new anterior approach for intraarticular glenohumeral injections instead of ultrasound-guided injections because it will save time and costs associated with ultrasound. Still, the clinical effects (anxiety, pain, functional outcome, and adverse events) of the new anterior approach should be compared with ultrasound-guided injections in a randomized study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

Needle Length Requirement for Glenohumeral Joint Injection Using the Neviaser Approach

Intra-articular glenohumeral joint injections are commonly performed in the clinical setting for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Multiple approaches are described, including the anterior and posterior approaches and the less studied superomedial (Neviaser) approach. The purpose of this study was to determine the length of needle required to enter the shoulder joint via the Neviaser approach by radiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements. Additionally, the authors sought to identify any correlation between needle length and body mass index (BMI). They performed a retrospective review of 101 consecutive patients evaluated by one faculty member at their institution. Inclusion criteria were age older than 50 years, no previous shoulder surgery, no history of acromioclavicular joint injury, and having a true anteroposterior radiograph and MRI within 1 year of each other. Using a digital imaging system, the Neviaser approach needle path was drawn for both images, and the lengths were measured. Correlation coefficients for needle length and BMI were calculated. The images of 58 (57.4%) male patients and 43 (42.6%) female patients were evaluated (average BMI, 31.2 kg/m²). The average needle length measurement was 4.27 cm on radiograph and 3.9 cm on MRI. Correlation coefficients were r=0.36 (P=.0002) using radiographs and r=0.53 (P<.0001) using MRIs. When using the Neviaser approach, there is a moderate positive correlation between BMI and the measured distance between skin and the glenohumeral joint when assessed on MRI, and a weak positive correlation on radiographs. The authors conclude that an injection needle of 2 inches or greater is required to reliably access the shoulder joint, and this length may increase with increasing BMI. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(4):e215-e218.].

Posterior subacromial injections are superior in differentiating a rotator cuff from a biceps pathology: A cadaveric study

Backgroud

the ideal route and accuracy of subacromial injections in shoulder pathologies are often questioned. This study aimed at comparing anterior and posterior injections in terms of subacromial space dye localization and diagnostic accuracy. We hypothesized that posterior injections would prove more accurate.

Methods

lidocaine-dye mix was injected posteriorly and anteriorly in five cadaveric shoulders each. Presence of dye was ascertained at dissection.

Results

All five posterior injections remained confined to the subacromial space. In all five anteriorly injected shoulders, the dye was seen leaking from the subacromial space into bicipital groove.

Conclusions

Varying accuracies of anterior [69-90%] and posterior [56-80%] subacromial injections have been reported. We observed both routes to be equally accurate [100%]. The dye exclusively remained within the subacromial space with posterior injections. This has higher diagnostic value in differentiating subacromial and long head of biceps pathologies. The anterior approach may have a better therapeutic role in combined subacromial and biceps pathologies.

Optimal management of glenohumeral osteoarthritis

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) is defined as progressive loss of articular cartilage, resulting in bony erosion, pain, and decreased function. This article provides a gross overview of this disease, along with peer-reviewed research by experts in the field. The pathology, diagnosis, and classification of this condition have been well described. Treatment begins with non-operative measures, including oral and topical anti-inflammatory agents, physical therapy, and intra- articular injections of either a corticosteroid or a viscosupplementation agent. Operative treatment is based on the age and function of the affected patient, and treatment of young individuals with glenohumeral OA remains controversial. Various methods of surgical treatment, ranging from arthroscopy to resurfacing, are being evaluated. The roles of hemiarthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty are similarly reviewed with supporting data.

Diagnostic Injections About the Shoulder

Injections about the shoulder serve diagnostic as well as therapeutic purposes. Diagnosis of shoulder conditions, such as rotator cuff tears, acromioclavicular joint pathology, subacromial impingement or anterolateral pain syndrome, glenohumeral joint pathology, suprascapular nerve entrapment, and biceps tendon pathologies, is often complicated by concomitant conditions with overlapping symptoms and by inconclusive physical examination and imaging results. Injections of anesthetic agents can often help clinicians locate the source of pain. However, technique and accuracy of needle placement can vary by route. Accuracy is often improved with the use of ultrasonography guidance, although studies differ on the benefits of guided versus unguided injection.

Musculoskeletal interventional procedures: With or without imaging guidance?

Aspiration and injection of joints and soft tissues is an indispensable skill used in everyday practice by the clinical rheumatologist. Most rheumatologists recognise that performing these procedures using anatomical landmarks is not always successful, particularly in the case of small or infrequently injected joints, bursae or tendon sheaths. Musculoskeletal ultrasound confirms the local pathological-anatomical diagnosis and is the most applicable and feasible imaging method that can be applied in clinical practice in guiding musculoskeletal interventional procedures. From 1993, there has been substantial examination of the accuracy of landmark- and imaging-guided procedures. We have searched the literature and ascertained whether imaging techniques improve the accuracy of musculoskeletal procedures and whether the accuracy of needle placement can be translated into improved clinical outcome (efficacy).

Does chondrolysis occur after corticosteroid-analgesic injections? An analysis of patients treated for adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder

BACKGROUND

Clinical studies using continuous infusions of local anesthetics and basic science studies that model injections of local anesthetics have shown chondrotoxicity. However, clinical studies do not exist that have assessed for the risk of chondrolysis in nonarthritic joints exposed to single or intermittent corticosteroid or analgesic injections. Currently, there are no data available to guide the clinician on the safety of using these injections in clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of patients treated for adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder with at least 1 intra-articular injection of a corticosteroid and anesthetic was performed. The inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis and a minimum 2-year follow-up. Prospective follow-up was performed to obtain patient-determined outcome scores, range of motion, and radiographs to determine the presence of chondrolysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients with a mean age of 52.5 ± 7.2 years were enrolled at a mean follow-up of 54 months. The mean number of injections performed was 1.5 ± 0.7 (range, 1-4). At final follow-up, the mean Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder score was 91.4% ± 14.2%; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, 6.7 ± 9.6; Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score, 7.4 ± 11.4; and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, 92.7% ± 10.1%. The Shoulder Activity Score was 8.3 ± 4.7. Passive and active forward elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, and cross-body adduction showed no significant differences compared with the unaffected contralateral shoulder. There was no radiographic evidence of chondrolysis in any patient.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not show chondrolysis in patients treated with an intra-articular corticosteroid and local anesthetic for adhesive capsulitis. The findings of this study do not support the cessation of using intra-articular analgesic-corticosteroid injections for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; Case Series; Treatment Study.

Comparison of accuracy of anterior and superomedial approaches to shoulder injection: an experimental study

Introduction: We aimed to compare the accuracy between the standard anterior technique of shoulder injection and the new superomedial technique modified from Neviaser arthroscopic portal placement. Intra-articular placement, especially at the long head of biceps (LHB) tendon, and needle depth were evaluated.

Methods: Fifty-eight patients (ages 57 ± 10 years) requiring shoulder arthroscopy in the beach-chair position were recruited. Needle punctures for both techniques were performed by an experienced sports medicine orthopedist. Patients were anesthetized, and the shoulder placed in the neutral position. A single needle was passed through the skin, with only one redirection allowed per trial. The superomedial technique was performed, then the anterior technique. Posterior-portal arthroscopy determined whether needle placement was inside the joint. The percentage of intra-articular needle placements for each technique defined accuracy. When inside the joint, the needle’s precise location was determined and its depth measured. A marginal χ² test compared results between techniques.

Results: The superomedial technique was significantly more accurate than the anterior technique (84% vs. 55%, p < 0.05). For superomedial versus anterior attempts, the LHB tendon was penetrated in 4% vs. 28% of patients, respectively, and the superior labrum in 35% vs. 0% of patients, respectively; the needle depth was 42 ± 7 vs. 32 ± 7 mm, respectively (all p < 0.05).

Conclusions: The superomedial technique was more accurate, penetrating the LHB tendon less frequently than the standard anterior technique. A small-diameter needle was needed to minimize superior labral injury. The superomedial technique required a longer needle to access the shoulder joint.

American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine

The use of diagnostic and interventional ultrasound has significantly increased over the past decade. A majority of the increased utilization is by nonradiologists. In sports medicine, ultrasound is often used to guide interventions such as aspirations, diagnostic or therapeutic injections, tenotomies, releases, and hydrodissections. This American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement critically reviews the literature and evaluates the accuracy, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided injections in major, intermediate, and small joints, and soft tissues, all of which are commonly performed in sports medicine. New ultrasound-guided procedures and future trends are also briefly discussed. Based upon the evidence, the official AMSSM position relevant to each subject is made.

American Medical Society for Sports Medicine position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine

The use of diagnostic and interventional ultrasound has significantly increased over the past decade. A majority of the increased utilization is by nonradiologists. In sports medicine, ultrasound is often used to guide interventions such as aspirations, diagnostic or therapeutic injections, tenotomies, releases, and hydrodissections. This American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement critically reviews the literature and evaluates the accuracy, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided injections in major, intermediate, and small joints, and soft tissues, all of which are commonly performed in sports medicine. New ultrasound-guided procedures and future trends are also briefly discussed. Based on the evidence, the official AMSSM position relevant to each subject is made.

American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine

BACKGROUND

The use of diagnostic and interventional ultrasound has significantly increased over the past decade. A majority of the increased utilisation is by non-radiologists. In sports medicine, ultrasound is often used to guide interventions such as aspirations, diagnostic or therapeutic injections, tenotomies, releases and hydrodissections.

OBJECTIVE

Critically review the literature related to the accuracy, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided injections (USGIs) in major, intermediate and small joints; and soft tissues.

DESIGN

Systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

USGIs are more accurate than landmark-guided injections (LMGIs; strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT) Evidence Rating=A). USGIs are more efficacious than LMGIs (SORT Evidence Rating=B). USGIs are more cost-effective than LMGIs (SORT Evidence Rating=B). Ultrasound guidance is required to perform many new procedures (SORT Evidence Rating=C).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this position statement indicate there is strong evidence that USGIs are more accurate than LMGI, moderate evidence that they are more efficacious and preliminary evidence that they are more cost-effective. Furthermore, ultrasound-guided (USG) is required to perform many new, advanced procedures and will likely enable the development of innovative USG surgical techniques in the future.

Glenohumeral joint penetration with a 21-gauge standard needle

BACKGROUND

This study assessed whether a standard 21-gauge needle (length, 38.1 mm [1.5 inches]) is more likely to penetrate the glenohumeral joint through an anterior or a posterior approach.

METHODS

Seventy-nine patients underwent an arthroscopic procedure on the glenohumeral joint. The depth from the skin to the joint capsule was compared between the posterior approach (10 mm medial and inferior to the posterolateral tip of the acromion) and the anterior approach (direct visualization through the rotator interval). Each approach was measured twice and the mean used. The data were analyzed using a 2-sided paired t test.

RESULTS

The anterior approach was shorter than the posterior approach in all patients (P < .001). This was less than the length of a standard needle in 98.7% of patients. The mean skin-to-joint capsule depth was 43.5 mm (range, 24-58 mm) with the posterior approach and 27.1 mm (range, 12.5-40 mm) with the anterior approach. On average, the posterior approach was 16.3 mm deeper (range, 0.5-31.5 mm) than the anterior approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Injections through the anterior approach are more likely to penetrate the glenohumeral joint than through the posterior approach if a standard needle is used.

Comparison of ultrasound-guided versus blind glenohumeral injections: a cadaveric study

BACKGROUND

Intra-articular glenohumeral (GH) injections are important for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. It has been suggested that ultrasound guided injections are more accurate than blind or freehand injections. This study assessed the accuracy of ultrasound-guided GH injections compared with freehand injections in fresh cadavers.

METHODS

The study used 80 shoulder specimens from fresh cadavers. Ultrasound guidance was used to inject radiopaque contrast in 40 shoulders, and freehand technique was used in the remaining 40. All injections were performed by 2 surgeons (A and B) through a posterior approach. After the injections, radiographs were obtained of the specimens to assess the accuracy of the injections.

RESULTS

Sixty-six of 80 (82.5%) injections were accurately administered into the GH joint. Ultrasound-guided injections were accurate in 37 of 40 specimens (92.5%) compared with freehand injections, which were accurate in only 29 of 40 specimens (72.5%; P = .02). Both surgeons independently had higher accuracy using ultrasound-guidance compared with the freehand technique (surgeon A: 90% vs 65%, P = 0.058; surgeon B: 95% vs 80%, P = 0.15). The average time for injections was 52 seconds by the freehand technique and 166 seconds using ultrasound guidance (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The data from this cadaveric study suggest that ultrasound-guided injections are more accurate at reaching the GH joint than freehand injections. The ultrasound-guided injections took substantially longer to administer. Once familiar with the technique, surgeons can expect improved accuracy and efficacy of GH joint injections using ultrasound guidance in the clinical setting.

Accuracy of intra-articular injections of the glenohumeral joint through an anterior approach: arthroscopic correlation

BACKGROUND

Intra-articular injections of the glenohumeral joint are an important tool for orthopedic surgeons who treat the spectrum of shoulder disorders. Previous studies, however, have suggested that these injections may not be reliably placed intra-articularly in the glenohumeral joint when performed in the office setting and that radiographic assistance may be necessary. This study assessed the accuracy of a glenohumeral injection through an anterior approach with arthroscopic confirmation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 75 consecutive patients who were undergoing routine shoulder arthroscopy for a variety of shoulder disorders. All underwent anterior placement of a 1.5-inch, 21-gauge needle using a location just lateral to the coracoid and angled 45° toward the glenohumeral joint. After injection of sterile saline, a diagnostic arthroscopy was initiated through a standard posterior portal. The needle was considered intra-articular if fluid was expressed from the eyelet of the needle when the arthroscopy pump was turned on or with direct visualization of the needle with the arthroscope, or both.

RESULTS

The needle was visualized with the arthroscope in all 75 patients (100%). In 70 patients (93.3%), fluid was expressed through the eyelet of the needle when the arthroscopy pump was turned on.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that an anterior injection into the glenohumeral joint can be accurately placed without radiographic assistance using standard landmarks. The technique used is similar to making a standard rotator interval portal during shoulder arthroscopy; therefore, it is most successful in the hands of experienced shoulder arthroscopists.

Accuracy of intra-articular injection of the glenohumeral joint: a modified anterior approach

PURPOSE

This study examined the accuracy of our modified anterior approach to the glenohumeral joint using arthrography.

METHODS

Two hundred fifty-six consecutive patients with adhesive capsulitis received the glenohumeral joint injection: a mixture of 1 mL of 40 mg of triamcinolone hexacetonide, 2 mL of 2% lidocaine, 3 mL of contrast medium (Ioxitalamate), and 4 mL of normal saline solution, for a total of 10 mL, through a modified anterior approach. Anteroposterior, lateral, and axial arthrography after each injection was performed to determine the accuracy and patterns of the injection. The injection was judged to be successful if some of the contrast medium was placed within the joint.

RESULTS

There were 78 male and 178 female patients, and the mean age was 54 years (range, 28 to 87 years). In 232 of the 256 patients (90.6%), the injection was deemed to have reached the glenohumeral joint, and these cases were considered successful. Among these patients, the contrast medium was shown only in the joint in 189 (73.8%), whereas in 43 (16.8%) it was shown both in and out of the joint. Of the 24 misguided injections, 15 (5.9%) had anterior placement, 6 (2.3%) had posterior placement, and 2 (0.8%) had superior placement, whereas the material was located in all portions outside the joint in 1 (0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that our modified anterior approach had an accuracy greater than 90% for the intra-articular injection of the glenohumeral joint without radiographic guidance.

Accuracy of glenohumeral joint injections: comparing approach and experience of provider

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the accuracy of three different approaches used for glenohumeral injections. In addition, the accuracy of the injection was compared to the experience and confidence of the provider.

METHODS

One-hundred six consecutive patients with shoulder pain underwent attempted intra-articular injection either posteriorly, supraclavicularly, or anteriorly. Each approach was performed by an experienced and inexperienced provider. A musculoskeletal radiologist blinded to technique used and provider interpreted fluoroscopic images to determine accuracy. Providers were blinded to these results.

RESULTS

The accuracy of the anterior approach regardless of experience was 64.7%, the posterior approach was 45.7%, and the supraclavicular approach was 45.5%. With each approach, experience did not provide an advantage. For the anterior approach, the experienced provider was 50% accurate compared to 85.7%. For the posterior approach, the experienced provider had a 42.1% accuracy rate compared to 50%. The experienced provider was accurate 50% of the time in the supraclavicular approach compared to 38.5%. The providers were not able to predict their accuracy regardless of experience. The experienced providers, when compared to those who were less experienced, were more likely to be overconfident, particularly with the anterior and supraclavicular approaches.

CONCLUSION

There was no statistically significant difference between the 3 approaches. The anterior approach was the most accurate, independent of the experience level of the provider. The posterior approach produced the lowest level of confidence regardless of experience. The experienced providers were not able to accurately predict the results of their injections, and were more likely to be overconfident with the anterior and supraclavicular approaches.