Are blind injections of gleno-humeral joint (GHJ) really less accurate imaging-guided injections? A narrative systematic review considering multiple anatomical approaches

Accuracy of Intraarticular Injections: Blind vs. Image Guided Techniques-A Review of Literature

Intra-articular injections are widely used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes of joint pathologies throughout the body. These injections can be performed blind by utilizing anatomical landmarks or with the use of imaging modalities to directly visualize the joint space during injections. This review of the literature aims to comprehensively identify differences in the accuracy of intra-articular injections via palpation vs. image guidance in the most commonly injected joints in the upper and lower extremities. To our knowledge, there are no such comprehensive reviews available. A narrative literature review was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar databases to identify studies focusing on the accuracy of blind or image-guided intra-articular injections for each joint. A total of 75 articles was included in this review, with blind and image-guided strategies being discussed for the most commonly injected joints of the upper and lower extremities. Varying ranges of accuracy with blind and image-guided modalities were found throughout the literature, though an improvement in accuracy was seen in nearly all joints when using image guidance. Differences are pronounced, particularly in deep joints such as the hip or in the small joints such as those in the hand or foot. Image guidance is a useful adjunct for most intra-articular injections, if available. Though there is an increase in accuracy in nearly all joints, minor differences in accuracy seen in large, easily accessed joints, such as the knee, may not warrant image guidance.

Ultrasound-guided interventions of the upper extremity joints

Ultrasound guidance is valuable for performing precise joint interventions. Joint interventions may be requested for therapeutic and diagnostic pain injections, joint aspiration in the setting of suspected infection, or contrast injection for arthrography. In practice, interventions of the shoulder girdle, elbow, and hand/wrist joints may be performed without any imaging guidance. However, imaging guidance results in more accurate interventions and better patient outcomes than those performed by palpation alone. When compared to other modalities used for imaging guidance, ultrasound has many potential advantages. Radiologists should be prepared to perform ultrasound-guided upper extremity joint interventions utilizing recommended techniques to optimize clinical practice and patient outcomes. KEY POINTS: 1. Ultrasound-guided injections of the glenohumeral, acromioclavicular, sternoclavicular, elbow, and hand/wrist joints have higher accuracy than injections performed without imaging guidance. 2. Ultrasound-guided aspirations of upper extremity joints have advantages to fluoroscopic-guided aspirations because of the potential to identify effusions, soft tissue abscess, or bursitis. 3. Ultrasound-guided contrast injection prior to MR arthrography is as accurate as fluoroscopic-guided injection for upper extremity joints.

Squishing sound heard following an intra-articular shoulder injection with fluid and air is associated with higher efficacy: A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Accuracy of blind intra-articular injections for the shoulder is rather low. It is unclear whether accurate injections for capsulitis of the shoulder are more effective than inaccurate injections.

OBJECTIVE

It has been hypothesized that a squishing sound following an intra-articular injection with a mixture of air and fluid means that the injection was accurately placed and that the efficacy of accurately placed injections is greater than that of inaccurate injections. The aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that a squishing sound following an injection predicts a better clinical result.

METHODS

Files were selected of patients with capsulitis of the shoulder, who were treated with an intra-articular injection containing a mixture of triamcinolone, lidocaine, and air. After the injection, the shoulder was moved to determine whether a squishing sound could be produced. Efficacy was measured after two weeks according to the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. Differences in efficacy between injections with and without a squishing sound were expressed as an odds ratio.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients were selected. Squishing was heard after 47 injections (77%). Two weeks after the injection, a positive outcome was reported by 49 patients (80%). When squishing was heard, the effect was positive in 42 of the 47 patients (89%) and when no squishing was heard, the effect was positive in 7 of the 14 patients (50%). The odds ratio was 8.4 (95% CI 2.1-34.0; p= 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Efficacy of injections with a mixture of triamcinolone, lidocaine, and air for capsulitis of the shoulder is significantly greater when a squishing sound was heard after the injection. We hypothesize that squishing is related to accuracy and accuracy to efficacy. A future study with X-ray arthrography is needed to verify both hypotheses.

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.

Therapeutic efficacy of low-dose steroid combined with hyaluronidase in ultrasonography-guided intra-articular injections into the shoulder for adhesive capsulitis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of low-dose steroid, high-dose steroid, and low-dose steroid combined with hyaluronidase with respect to intra-articular injection therapy for adhesive capsulitis (AC) of the shoulder.

METHODS

Thirty patients with primary AC in the initial stage were randomly assigned into three groups to receive ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections with 20 mg of triamcinolone acetonide (group A, n=10), 40 mg of triamcinolone acetonide (group B, n=10) and 20 mg of triamcinolone acetonide combined with hyaluronidase (group C, n=10). The outcome measures included a visual analogue scale (VAS), the Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), abduction and external rotation range of motion, and intra-sheath fluid (ISF) before treatment and at 2, 4, 8, and 16 weeks after treatment.

RESULTS

Among the 30 patients, one participant in group B dropped out; therefore, a total of 29 patients completed this study and were successfully injected. After the injection, the VAS, SDQ, range of flexion and external rotation, and ISF improved in all groups compared with the preinjection status, regardless of treatment or time point. In the comparison between groups, the SDQ and ISF showed significantly greater improvements in groups B and C than in group A.

CONCLUSION

The therapeutic efficacy of combined low-dose corticosteroid and hyaluronidase is superior to that of low-dose corticosteroid and equivalent to that of high-dose corticosteroid in early AC.

A prospective double-blind randomized trial on ultrasound-guided versus blind intra-articular corticosteroid injections for primary frozen shoulder

AIMS

Ultrasound (US)-guided injections are widely used in patients with conditions of the shoulder in order to improve their accuracy. However, the clinical efficacy of US-guided injections compared with blind injections remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and efficacy of US-guided compared with blind corticosteroid injections into the glenohumeral joint in patients with primary frozen shoulder (FS).

METHODS

Intra-articular corticosteroid injections were administered to 90 patients primary FS, who were randomly assigned to either an US-guided (n = 45) or a blind technique (n = 45), by a shoulder specialist. Immediately after injection, fluoroscopic images were obtained to assess the accuracy of the injection. The outcome was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the subjective shoulder value (SSV) and range of movement (ROM) for all patients at the time of presentation and at three, six, and 12 weeks after injection.

RESULTS

The accuracy of injection in the US and blind groups was 100% (45/45) and 71.1% (32/45), respectively; this difference was significant (p < 0.001). Both groups had significant improvements in VAS pain score, ASES score, SSV, forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation throughout follow-up until 12 weeks after injection (all p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the VAS pain scores, the ASES score, the SSV and all ROMs between the two groups at the time points assessed (all p > 0.05). No injection-related adverse effects were noted in either group.

CONCLUSION

We found no significant differences in pain and functional outcomes between the two groups, although an US-guided injection was associated with greater accuracy. Considering that it is both costly and time-consuming, an US-guided intra-articular injection of corticosteroid seems not always to be necessary in the treatment of FS as it gives similar outcomes as a blind injection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):353-359.

Shoulder MR Arthrography: Comparative Evaluation of Three Different Contrast Injection Techniques Using an Anterior Approach

BACKGROUND

MR arthrography (MRA) is commonly used in the assessment of shoulder internal derangements. Correct intra-articular contrast injection is required for this modality. Anterior injections under fluoroscopic, ultrasound-guidance, or without image-guidance have been described in the literature. However, no simultaneous comparison has been performed between the three techniques.

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy and performance of fluoroscopy (FL)-guided, ultrasound (US)-guided and non-image-guided intra-articular contrast injection via an anterior approach for performing shoulder MRA.

STUDY TYPE

Prospective.

SUBJECTS

Two-hundred and ten patients (180 men and 30 women; mean age, 33 ± 12 years; range 20-60 years) with clinically suspected shoulder pathology.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

1.5T/fat-suppressed T₁ -weighted, T₂ -weighted, and 3D-gradient-echo images.

ASSESSMENT

Patients underwent shoulder MRA after anterior intra-articular contrast injection under FL- or US-guidance or without image-guidance. Patients were randomized among the three techniques with each group comprising 70. The techniques were compared according to the accuracy of intra-articular needle placement, attempts success rate, pain during and 24 hours after injection, procedure times, contrast extravasation rate, joint distension, and MRA diagnostic efficacy. Pain was assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS) pain-score.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Pearson's chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

RESULTS

FL- and US-guided injections (100% accuracy) were significantly more accurate than non-image-guided (85.7% accuracy) (P < 0.05). US-guidance was the least painful, with statistical differences between image-guided and non-image-guided techniques regarding the first attempt success rate (95.7% and 92.8% for FL- and US-guided vs. 78.6% for blinded), VAS-score 24 hours-post-procedure (1.7 ± 1.7, and 1.5 ± 1.4 vs. 2.2 ± 1.4), procedure time (11.9 ± 1.6, and 7.4 ± 1.7 vs. 4.3 ± 0.76 minutes), and contrast extravasation rate (5.7%, and 8.6% vs. 30%) (all P < 0.05). Procedure time was also significantly different between FL and US-guidance (P < 0.05).

DATA CONCLUSION

Imaging-guided injections are more accurate and tolerable than non-image-guided and should be considered to confirm intra-articular needle position, hence adequate capsular distension and good diagnostic quality of shoulder MRA. US guidance is a less painful, rapid, and safe alternative to the FL approach. Evidence Level: 2 Technical Efficacy Stage: 5. J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2021;53:481-490.

Ultrasonography for the orthopaedic surgeon

The recent development of high-frequency ultrasonography transducers has provided better accuracy and improved the ability to image more superficial body structures. Ultrasonography is a widely available, inexpensive, comparative, and dynamic imaging technique that involves no radiation exposure and has no other adverse effects. Ultrasonography must always be combined with a medical history, physical examination, and radiographic assessment. What is ultrasound-assisted orthopaedic surgery? This approach consists in the use of ultrasonography by orthopaedic surgeons during patient visits and/or in the operating room. Similar to arthroscopy, ultrasonography is used as a complementary technique by physicians involved in the management of musculo-skeletal disease (e.g., radiologists, rheumatologists, and sports physicians). What knowledge of biophysics is needed to use ultrasonography? The surgeon must be familiar with the mechanisms by which the ultrasound waves are generated and received during B-mode and Doppler ultrasonography and with possible types of image artefacts. What is the procedure for examining a structure by ultrasonography? Each anatomic component must be assessed along two perpendicular planes in scanning mode. What does ultrasonography contribute during patient visits? Ultrasonography provides additional diagnostic information and helps to explain the pathological process to the patient. How does the contribution of ultrasonography vary across body sites and pathological processes? Ultrasonographic imaging is easier at some body sites than at others. Ultrasonography can provide useful information in patients with joint disease, sports injuries, osteo-articular infections, peripheral neuropathy, or tumours. What is interventional ultrasonography in orthopaedic surgery? Ultrasound-guided orthopaedic interventions include injections, aspirations, and minimally invasive surgical procedures. How can orthopaedic surgeons incorporate ultrasonography into their practice? The surgeon must purchase an ultrasound machine dedicated to the musculo-skeletal system and follow the necessary training courses.

Transcoracoacromial Ligament Glenohumeral Injection Technique Using Bony Surface Landmarks

Intra-articular glenohumeral injection is an important technique used to diagnose and treat shoulder disorders. However, it is frequently performed as an image-guided technique with the use of fluoroscopy, ultrasound, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe a transcoracoacromial ligament glenohumeral injection technique that uses anatomic surface landmarks to avoid the need for radiographic guidance. After identification of the anterolateral corner of acromion, the superior lateral border of the coracoid tip, and the curved depression of the distal clavicle, the needle entry site is determined at the trisection point between the distal and middle thirds of the line formed by the superior lateral border of the coracoid tip and the curved depression of the distal clavicle. The needle is first inserted perpendicular to the triangular plane of the 3 points and is then advanced toward the humeral head. This injection technique is highly accurate and reproducible and can be done in the outpatient clinic without the use of imaging guidance, reducing the costs and barriers of intra-articular glenohumeral injections for patients.

Transcoracoacromial Ligament Glenohumeral Injection Technique: Accuracy of 116 Injections in Idiopathic Adhesive Capsulitis

PURPOSE

To describe a transcoracoacromial ligament glenohumeral injection technique that does not require radiographic guidance and to explore the accuracy of this injection technique in patients with idiopathic adhesive capsulitis.

METHODS

From February 2015 to April 2017, 89 consecutive patients (116 injections) with idiopathic adhesive capsulitis were included in the study. All of them received unguided glenohumeral injection via the transcoracoacromial ligament technique, and postprocedural fluoroscopic images were used to determine accuracy. The anterolateral corner of acromion, the superior lateral border of coracoid tip, and the curved depression of distal clavicle were identified. The needle entry site was located at the trisection point between the distal third and middle third of the superior lateral border of coracoid tip-curved depression of the distal clavicle line; needle trajectory was perpendicular to the plane formed by the 3 points, and the needle was advanced toward the humeral head. An injection was rated a success if the first fluoroscopic picture showed intra-articular contrast; it was rated a failure if contrast was not intra-articular or the needle needed to be redirected more than 2 times.

RESULTS

Out of 116 injections, 111 (95.7%) were successful. For 5 failed injections, there was 1 shoulder with more than 3 redirections and 4 shoulders with no intra-articular contrast (the needle hit the coracoid process in 1 shoulder, the needle rested in the anterior glenoid labrum in 2 shoulders, and the needle was inserted into the subscapularis in 1 shoulder).

CONCLUSIONS

The transcoracoacromial ligament glenohumeral injection technique is highly accurate and reproducible in patients with idiopathic adhesive capsulitis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic retrospective case series.