Image guided injection therapies in athletes-Do they work and what should we be using?

Ultrasound-guided interventions in elite soccer players

In the world of elite soccer, or football as we call it in the UK, a player who cannot play for any length of time costs the team money and team performance. The time to return to play (RTP) is crucial in any player's career, and the use of ultrasound-guided ultrasound injections has become important in the management of injury. In this article, I will explain the importance of good practice when performing these procedures and the use of steroids, sodium hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and other therapies in achieving the goal of decreasing the time of RTP for the footballer. KEY POINTS: •Injection therapies are routine practice in maintaining and treating soccer injuries. •Injection therapies can be safely performed under ultrasound guidance.

Imaging-detected sports injuries and imaging-guided interventions in athletes during the 2022 FIFA football (soccer) World Cup

OBJECTIVE

To describe imaging-detected musculoskeletal injuries and image-guided interventional procedures during the 2022 FIFA football (soccer) World Cup.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all radiologic examinations performed in a central medical facility for athletes was performed by two board certified musculoskeletal radiologists. Data on muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage, and bone injuries were collected according to imaging modality and body part.

RESULTS

A total of 143 radiology examinations in 94 athletes were evaluated at the central medical facility. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was the most utilized modality (67%), followed by radiography (12%), ultrasonography (9%), and computed tomography (4%). Image-guided interventions corresponded to 8% of all radiological examinations. There were 112 injuries described, affecting muscles and tendons (42%), ligaments (25%), cartilage (21%), and bone (12%). Most injured body parts were thigh (27%), foot and ankle (23%), knee (23%), and hip/groin (8%). Most injured players were within the age range of 24-35 years old (71%).

CONCLUSION

Imaging was utilized in 11% of players who participated in the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. MRI was the most utilized modality, and acute muscle tears were the most diagnosed type of injury. Diagnostic imaging played an important role in diagnosing sports-related injuries during the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

Hamid MS. Efficacy of prolotherapy in comparison to other therapies for chronic soft tissue injuries: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Introduction

Prolotherapy and other injections, primarily acting on pathways associated with maladaptive tissue repair, are recommended for recalcitrant chronic soft tissue injuries (CSTI). However, selection of injection is challenging due to mixed results. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare prolotherapy with other therapies, particularly injections, for CSTI and establish robustness of the results.

Methodology

Pubmed, Medline, SPORTDiscus and Google scholar were searched from inception to 4^th January 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving injection therapies (e.g. blood derivatives, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, botulinum toxin) for CSTI. The primary and secondary outcomes were pain and function, respectively, at (or nearest to) 6 months. Effect size (ES) was presented as standardised mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). Frequentist random effect NMA was used to generate the overall estimates, subgroup estimates (by region and measurement time point) and sensitivity analyses.

Results

A total of 91 articles (87 RCTs; 5859 participants) involving upper limb (74%), lower limb (23%) and truncal/hip (3%) injuries were included. At all time points, prolotherapy had no statistically significant pain benefits over other therapies. This observation remained unchanged when tested under various assumptions and with exclusion of studies with high risk of bias. Although prolotherapy did not offer statistically significant functional improvement compared to most therapies, its ES was consistently better than non-injections and corticosteroid injection for both outcomes. At selected time points and for selected injuries, prolotherapy demonstrated potentially better pain improvement over placebo (<4 months: shoulder [ES 0.65; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.30]; 4–8 months: elbow [ES 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 1.70]; >8 months: shoulder [ES 2.08; 95% CI 1.49, to 2.68]). Injections generally produced greater ES when combined with non-injection therapy.

Conclusion

While clinical outcomes were generally comparable across types of injection therapy, prolotherapy may be used preferentially for selected conditions at selected times.