Evaluating the use of intra-articular injections as a treatment for painful hip osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group study comparing a single 6-mL injection of hylan G-F 20 with saline

Clinical efficacy of multiple intra-articular injection for hip osteoarthritis

Aims

Intra-articular (IA) injection may be used when treating hip osteoarthritis (OA). Common injections include steroids, hyaluronic acid (HA), local anaesthetic, and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Network meta-analysis allows for comparisons between two or more treatment groups and uses direct and indirect comparisons between interventions. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of various IA injections used in the management of hip OA with a follow-up of up to six months.

Methods

This systematic review and network meta-analysis used a Bayesian random-effects model to evaluate the direct and indirect comparisons among all treatment options. PubMed, Web of Science, Clinicaltrial.gov, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluate the efficacy of HA, PRP, local anaesthetic, steroid, steroid+anaesthetic, HA+PRP, and physiological saline injection as a placebo, for patients with hip OA were included.

Results

In this meta-analysis of 16 RCTs with a total of 1,735 participants, steroid injection was found to be significantly more effective than placebo injection on reported pain at three months, but no significant difference was observed at six months. Furthermore, steroid injection was considerably more effective than placebo injection for functional outcomes at three months, while the combination of HA+PRP injection was substantially more effective at six months.

Conclusion

Evidence suggests that steroid injection is more effective than saline injection for the treatment of hip joint pain, and restoration of functional outcomes.

Viscosupplementation Is Effective for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis in the Hip: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy of intra-articular viscosupplementation as a therapeutic intervention for hip osteoarthritis (OA), as well as to assess the duration of efficacy, effect of dose, composition and number of injections of the viscosupplement, and the incidence of adverse effects.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review using the literature search from the following databases: Embase, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Random-effects meta-analysis and mixed-effects subgroup analysis were carried out, but due to the high heterogeneity, low level of evidence, and high risk of bias of the included studies after analyzing the data, weighted means and pooled estimates have not been provided. Instead, we have provided a subjective synthesis of the results.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included in the analysis from an initial search of 3,265 studies, with data from a total of 3,350 patients. The level of available evidence was low with an overall high risk of bias. Nearly all studies showed a reduction in mean pain at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up, as well as at the end point, and an improvement in mean patient-reported function was also seen at these time points. However, heterogeneity was extremely high at all time points and remained despite attempts at removing outliers. Subgroup analyses looking at the effects of dose, volume, composition of viscosupplement, and number of injections were carried out, but substantial heterogeneity still remained. There were no lasting adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Weak evidence suggests that viscosupplementation improves patient-reported pain and function at end point compared to baseline, regardless of dose, volume, composition, and number of injections. However, due to the high heterogeneity, low level of evidence, and high risk of bias in the current available literature, the strength of our conclusions is limited.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of level I to IV studies.

Endophenotypes of Primary Osteoarthritis of the Hip Joint in the Bulgarian Population over 60 Years Old

Aim. To identify subgroups of patients with primary osteoarthritis of the hip joint (pHOA) with similar imaging and laboratory findings, disease evolution, and response to conventional therapies. Methods. We performed further statistical analyses on patient data from two published, double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled studies (DB-RCTs), which examined the effects of intra-articular corticosteroids (ia-CSs), hyaluronic acid (ia-HA)-KИ-109-3-0008/14.01.2014, and intravenous bisphosphonates (iv-BPs) -KИ- 109-3-0009/14.01.2014 compared to the country's standard pHOA therapy. The data span an 8-year follow-up of 700 patients with pHOA, including: 1. Clinical parameters (WOMAC-A, B, C, and T; PtGA). 2. Laboratory markers (serum calcium and phosphate levels; 25-OH-D and PTH, markers for bone sCTX-I and cartilage uCTX-II turnover). 3. Radiological indicators: X-ray stage (Kellgren-Lawrence (K/L) and model (Bombelli/OOARSI), width (mJSW), speed (JSN mm/year), and zone of maximum narrowing of the joint space (max-JSN)-determining the type of femoral head migration (FHM). 4. DXA indicators: bone geometry (HAL; NSA; and MNW); changes in regional and total bone mineral density (TH-BMD, LS-BMD, and TB-BMD). 5. Therapeutic responses (OARSI/MCII; mJSW; JSNmm/yearly) to different drug regimens (iv-BP -zoledronic acid (ZA/-5 mg/yearly for 3 years)); ia-CS 40 mg methylprednisolone acetate, twice every 6 months; and ia-HA with intermediate molecular weight (20 mg/2 mL × 3 weekly applications, two courses every 6 months) were compared to standard of care therapy (Standard of Care/SC/), namely D3-supplementation according to serum levels (20-120 ng/mL; target level of 60 ng/mL), simple analgesics (paracetamol, up to 2.0 g/24 h), and physical exercises. The abovementioned data were integrated into a non-supervised hierarchical agglomerative clustering analysis (NHACA) using Ward's linkage method and the squared Euclidean distance to identify different endophenotypes (EFs). Univariate and multivariate multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the impact of sex and FHM on clinical and radiographic regression of pHOA. Results. A baseline cluster analysis using incoming (M0) patient data identified three EFs: hypertrophic H-HOA, atrophic A-HOA, and intermediate I-HOA. These EFs had characteristics that were similar to those of patients grouped by radiographic stage and pattern ('H'-RPs, 'I'-RPs, and 'A'-RPs), p < 0.05). The repeated cluster analysis of M36 data identified four EF pHOAs: 1. Hypertrophic (slow progressors, the influence of the type of femoral head migration (FHM) outweighing the influence of sex on progression), progressing to planned total hip replacement (THR) within 5 (K/LIII) to 10 (K/LII) years. 2. Intermediate (sex is more important than the FHM type for progression) with two subgroups: 2#: male-associated (slow progressors), THR within 4 (K/LIII) to 8 years. (K/LII). 2* Female-associated (rapid progressors), THR within 3 (K/LIII) to 5 (K/LII) years. 3. Atrophic (rapid progressors; the influence of FHM type outweighs that of sex), THR within 2 (K/LIII) to 4 (K/LII) years. Each EF, in addition to the patient's individual progression rate, was also associated with a different response to the aforementioned therapies. Conclusions. Clinical endophenotyping provides guidance for a personalized approach in patients with pHOA, simultaneously assisting the creation of homogeneous patient groups necessary for conducting modern genetic and therapeutic scientific studies.

Imaging-Guided Musculoskeletal Interventions in the Lower Limb

Imaging guidance is essential for musculoskeletal interventional procedures performed in the lower limb. A strong evidence supports the use of imaging guidance to improve safety, accuracy, and effectiveness of these interventions. Joints, tendons, bursae, and nerves can be effectively approached especially with ultrasound-guided injections. Here, we discuss evidence and technique of the most common image-guided musculoskeletal interventional procedures in the lower limb.

Ultrasound-guided injection with hyaluronic acid in hip osteoarthritis: efficacy and safety in a real-life setting

BACKGROUND

For knee OA, EULAR has included hyaluronic acid (HA) intra-articular injection in the 2003 recommendations, making the intra-articular injection a sound therapeutic option. The ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections (USGIAI) have been demonstrated to be more efficient and safe in comparison to the blind procedure. Our objectives were to evaluate the short- and medium-term efficacy and safety of USGIAI of HA in moderate hip OA and patients' additional NSAIDs/pain killer intake.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with hip OA (KLG II/III), that failed standard of care therapy, received 3 consecutive HA-USGIAI (case group) while other patients (KLG II/III) treated according to current guidelines were chosen as a control group. Demographic data, comorbidities and medication intake were recorded. VAS pain scale and WOMAC score were performed at baseline and at 3 months. In the case group, they were additionally scored at 6 months. At baseline and at 6 months, hip X-ray assessment was also made. Ultrasound evaluation was made at each visit.

RESULTS

In the case group, 15 patients were enrolled and 28 hip joints were injected. The control group consisted of 17 hip OA patients. In the case group, pain evaluated by VAS score and WOMAC score were significantly and progressively decreased (p < 0.0001) from baseline up to 3 and 6 months, respectively. Indeed, the case group showed a significantly lower NSAIDs/pain killer median intake at 3 months from baseline (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that HA-USGIAI may be an effective and safe treatment for moderate hip OA with short- and medium-term benefits. Key Points • US hip evaluation before interventional maneuvers may identify capsular distension suggestive for concomitant septic involvement, microcrystal arthropathy or incipient hip osteonecrosis. • USGIAI may be fundamental to achieve an efficacious and safe injection. • HA-USGIAI may be an effective and safe treatment for moderate hip OA with short- and medium-term benefits.

Intra-articular placebo effect in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a survey of the current clinical evidence

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a debilitating disease characterized by chronic pain, stiffness, and decreased mobility. Intra-articular injectable therapies show good clinical efficacy in improving symptoms; however, these therapies and their comparators (intra-articular saline) have been associated with a large underlying placebo effect. We aimed to describe the existing evidence on the challenges, hypotheses, and potential solutions to mitigate the intra-articular placebo effect in clinical trials in KOA. A targeted literature review was conducted by searching Embase, MEDLINE®, and CENTRAL using predefined study selection criteria. All eligible studies identified were extracted for relevant data, and results were narratively summarized. Forty-three studies were included following screening. Challenges associated with the intra-articular placebo effect included its ability to mask the comparative efficacy of active treatments in trials (n = 7 studies), long-lasting effects (up to 6 months; n = 3), and substantial variation of placebo effect sizes across populations (n = 3). Hypotheses for the mechanism of the placebo effect included aspiration of synovial fluid during administration (n = 6) and dilution of inflammatory mediators (n = 2). Factors affecting the placebo effect size were more invasive routes of administration (e.g., injection versus oral; n = 4) and patient expectations (n = 2). Proposed solutions included the suggestion for readers to weigh the relevance of clinical trial evidence against the presence of large underlying placebo effects (n = 9), discontinuation of intra-articular saline as an appropriate placebo (n = 5), and inclusion of 'no treatment' or sham injection as a control (n = 4). The intra-articular placebo effect is a well-documented occurrence in KOA clinical trials, and it is suggested that it be accounted for when designing randomized controlled trials. Awareness and understanding of the intra-articular placebo effect in KOA are required for fair interpretation of clinical trial evidence.

BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS STATEMENT ON VISCOSUPPLEMENTATION OF THE HIP (COBRAVI-Q)

ABSTRACT Objective: The Brazilian Consensus on Hip Viscosupplementation aims to generate a referential and consensual source from the theoretical knowledge and clinical experience of specialists in the field. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel was formed with 15 specialists (sports medicine, orthopedists, physiatrists and rheumatologists), based on clinical and academic experience in the use of viscosupplementation of the hip. 12 statements were prepared, discussed and voted. Each panelist gave a value between 0 and 10 on a Likert scale, specifying their level of agreement with the statement. Results: The panel reached a consensus on several aspects of viscosupplementation of the hip, with emphasis on the following statements: best indication is for mild to moderate hip arthrosis; it may be indicated in severe osteoarthritis; results may vary according to the characteristics of the viscosupplement used; Viscosupplementation should not be performed as an isolated procedure, but in conjunction with other rehabilitation and pharmacological measures; best injection technique should be based on anatomical references coupled with imaging guidance; it is a cost-effective procedure. Conclusion: Viscosupplementation is a safe and effective therapy for hip osteoarthritis, even in severe cases. Guided injection is recommended. Level of Evidence V, Expert Opinion.

State of art in intra-articular hip injections of different medications for osteoarthritis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Intra-articular hip injections for osteoarthritis represent a useful instrument to reduce pain and disability in the common clinical practice. Several medications can be injected locally with different level of evidence-based efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of intra-articular injections of different medications or substances for the pain treatment and the management of disability in subjects affected by hip osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Two reviewers selected independently randomised controlled trials published in the last 10 years, using PubMed and Scopus databases. The risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane library assessment tool.

RESULTS

12 randomised controlled trials have been selected. We found 8 papers comparing hyaluronic acid with platelet rich plasma, with corticosteroids and with saline solution; 1 paper compares two types of hyaluronic acid with different molecular weights; 3 papers study the effects of corticosteroids alone or compared to ketorolac or saline solution.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies reviewed were heterogeneous regarding sample size, level of osteoarthritis, evaluated with Kellegren-Lawrence score, medications used and follow up timings. However, we have observed that intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma seem to decrease pain at short term and disability at long term, in patients affected by hip osteoarthritis better than hyaluronic acid. The association of hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids could give better results compared to hyaluronic acid alone, while the use of intra-articular ketorolac and saline solution requires more studies.

Intra-articular Injections of Cross-linked Hyaluronic Acid in Japanese Patients with Symptomatic Osteoarthritis of the Hip

Objectives

We investigated the efficacy and safety of Hylan G-F 20 for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis in Japanese patients.

Methods

Twenty-nine patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) received Hylan G-F 20 injection into the hip. The visual analog scale of pain during gait (VAS-G), VAS of pain at rest, hip joint function evaluated by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and adverse events were evaluated before, immediately after, and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after injection. Patients were categorized according to the severity of OA (mild and severe OA groups) and dysplasia (dysplastic and non-dysplastic groups) and these groups were compared.

Results

After the injection, VAS-G improved significantly for 12 weeks. VAS-G was lower (less pain) in the mild OA group than in the severe OA group at each time point. There were no differences in VAS-G between the dysplastic and non-dysplastic groups throughout the observation period. VAS-G improved significantly in the dysplastic group after the injection. The JOA score and HRQoL demonstrated the same tendency as VAS-G. Three patients experienced worsening of local pain immediately after the injection; however, the pain on the following day was less than that before the injection in all three hips.

Conclusions

Hylan G-F 20 injection into the hip joint was effective in reducing hip pain and can be used as a non-operative treatment option for hip OA in the Japanese population.

Clinical indications for image-guided interventional procedures in the musculoskeletal system: a Delphi-based consensus paper from the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR)-part IV, hip

Objectives

Image-guided musculoskeletal interventional procedures around the hip are widely used in daily clinical practice. The need for clarity concerning the actual added value of imaging guidance and types of medications to be offered led the Ultrasound and the Interventional Subcommittees of the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR) to promote, with the support of its Research Committee, a collaborative project to review the published literature on image-guided musculoskeletal interventional procedures in the lower limb in order to derive a list of clinical indications.

Methods

In this article, we report the results of a Delphi-based consensus of 53 experts who reviewed the published literature for evidence on image-guided interventional procedures offered in the joint and soft tissues around the hip in order of their clinical indications.

Results

Ten statements concerning image-guided treatment procedures around the hip have been collected by the panel of ESSR experts.

Conclusions

This work highlighted that there is still low evidence in the existing literature on some of these interventional procedures. Further large prospective randomized trials are essential to better confirm the benefits and objectively clarify the role of imaging to guide musculoskeletal interventional procedures around the hip.

Key Points

• Expert consensus produced a list of 10 evidence-based statements on clinical indications of image-guided interventional procedures around the hip.

• The highest level of evidence was only reached for one statement.

• Strong consensus was obtained for all statements.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-07997-5.

The Use of Biologics for Hip Preservation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A wide array of nonoperative modalities to treat hip pain are aimed at restoring and maintaining the structural and physiologic characteristics of the joint. The purpose of this review is to describe the current understanding of biologics in hip pathology by providing an evidence-based overview of treatment modalities available for orthopedic surgeons.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of biologics as a primary treatment or adjunct to traditional management has shown encouraging results for the treatment of hip pain. Studies have demonstrated safety with minimal complications when using platelet rich plasma, hyaluronic acid, or stem cells to treat hip pain caused by osteoarthritis, femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, tendinopathy, or osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Several studies have been able to demonstrate meaningful clinical results that can improve treatment standards for hip pain; however, more work must be performed to better delineate the appropriate protocols, indications, and limitations of each modality. Recent advances have inspired renewed interest in biologics for patients with hip pain. We present a concise review of platelet rich plasma, hyaluronic acid, stem cells, and matrix metalloprotease inhibitors and their applicability to hip preservation surgery.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A New Choice for Nonsurgical Treatment of OA? Results from a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common degenerative joint disease, causing joint pain, stiffness, and even disability. Guidelines recommend intra-articular injections as an alternative treatment to relieve OA symptoms for patients who demonstrate poor tolerability or compliance to oral administration of drugs. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are a potential treatment for of OA. We conducted this network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety between hyaluronic acid (HA), corticosteroids (GCs), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and MSCs.

Design

Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Data Sources. Relevant studies, published from January 2000 to January 2020, in the PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, and CKNI databases.

Methods

Bayesian network and conventional meta-analyses were conducted. Pain relief, functional improvement, improvement in joint stiffness, and risk of adverse effects (AEs) were assessed.

Results

Twenty-five articles with 4642 patients were included. Overall, MSC therapy was the most effective treatment for pain relief (standardized mean difference compared with placebo = 3.61, 95% CI [1.87 to 5.35]). Both MSC and PRP therapies improved every symptom of OA effectively and have an advantage over HA and GCs which are recommended by guidelines. MSCs, PRP, HA, and GCs are tolerated well for patients in long-term treatment of OA compared with placebo.

Conclusions

The results show that MSCs relieve pain, stiffness, and dysfunction due to OA better than PRP, HA, and GCs and are not statistically correlated with greater safety concerns. More high-quality trials are needed to reconfirm the findings of this study, however, standardization of preparation of MSCs and PRP should be investigated in the future.

Viscosupplementation for hip osteoarthritis: Does systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures support use?

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis of the hip is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. There is lack of agreement among providers and governing agencies regarding the efficacy of hyaluronic acid (HA) for the management of hip osteoarthritis (OA). Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to determine how HA administration impacts 1) patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 2) rates of conversion to THA.

METHODS

The PubMed, EBSCO host, and Google Scholar electronic databases were queried for all studies published between January 1st, 2000 and January 1st, 2020 that reported on outcomes following HA administration for treatment of hip OA. The following keywords were implemented with AND and OR Boolean operators: "hip"; "osteoarthritis"; "arthritis"; "viscosupplementation"; "hyaluronic acid." Our final analysis included 39 studies and reported on a total of 5,864 patients receiving injections of HA.

RESULTS

All studies reporting on visual analog scale (VAS), patient global assessment, and total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores demonstrated improvements following HA administration. For the Lequesne Index (LI), WOMAC pain, WOMAC function, and Harris Hip Score (HHS) values, a majority of studies reported that HA would prove beneficial, with one analysis suggesting a lack of improvement. There was inconsistent evidence across studies regarding the effectiveness of HA compared to other intra-articular injections. The formulation of the administered viscosupplementation did not appear to influence outcomes. Furthermore, rates of conversion to THA were relatively low when evaluating 1- to 4-year follow-up intervals.

DISCUSSION

Non-comparative studies consistently demonstrated that HA can achieve satisfactory pain reduction and functional improvement. However, there was not enough evidence in the current literature regarding whether HA is superior to placebo or other types of intra-articular injections. Future studies should continue to compare HA to other treatment modalities in randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes.

Intra-articular saline injection is as effective as corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma and hyaluronic acid for hip osteoarthritis pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective

Intra-articular (IA) injections represent a commonly used modality in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis (OA). Commonly used injections include corticosteroids (CCS), hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). A network meta-analysis allows for comparison among more than two treatment arms and uses both direct and indirect comparisons between interventions. The objective of this network meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of the various IA injectable treatments in treating hip OA at up to 6 months of follow-up.

Design

This is a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Bayesian random-effects model was performed to assess the direct and indirect comparisons of all treatment options.

Data sources

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception to October 2019.

Eligibility criteria for selected studies

Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of CCS, HA, PRP and placebo in the form of IA saline injection for patients with hip OA.

Results

Eleven randomised controlled trials comprising 1353 patients were included. For pain outcomes at both 2–4 and 6 months, no intervention significantly outperformed placebo IA injection. For functional outcomes at both 2–4 and 6 months, no intervention significantly outperformed placebo IA injection. Regarding change from baseline at 2–4 months and 6 months, pooled data demonstrated that all interventions (including placebo), with the exception of HA+PRP, led to a clinically important improvement in both pain, exceeding the minimal clinically important difference.

Conclusion

Evidence suggests that IA hip saline injections performed as well as all other injectable options in the management of hip pain and functional outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Therapies for Osteoarthritic Hip Pain: a Comprehensive Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent cause of chronic hip pain, affecting 27% of adults aged over 45 years and 42% of adults aged over 75 years. Though OA has traditionally been described as a disorder of "wear-and-tear," recent studies have expanded on this understanding to include a possible inflammatory etiology as well, damage to articular cartilage produces debris in the joint that is phagocytosed by synovial cells which leads to inflammation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with OA of the hip frequently have decreased quality of life due to pain and limited mobility though additional comorbidities of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, poor sleep quality, and obesity have been correlated. Initial treatment with conservative medical management can provide effective symptomatic relief. Physical therapy and exercise are important components of a multimodal approach to osteoarthritic hip pain. Patients with persistent pain may benefit from minimally invasive therapeutic approaches prior to consideration of undergoing total hip arthroplasty. The objective of this review is to provide an update of current minimally invasive therapies for the treatment of pain stemming from hip osteoarthritis; these include intra-articular injection of medication, regenerative therapies, and radiofrequency ablation.

Editorial Commentary: Intra-articular Injection for Osteoarthritis-Is It Hip or Not?

Intra-articular injections are commonly used in the treatment algorithm for osteoarthritis of the hip. A number of different adjuvants can be used, such as corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid, and platelet-rich plasma, but there is no consensus regarding indications for or anticipated outcomes of each of these interventions. Recent data suggest that corticosteroids provide the best relief in the short term whereas platelet-rich plasma may be more beneficial in the mid term, but the results are variable. Ultimately, more rigorous studies are needed to evaluate these adjuvants, in particular biologics, while remaining fastidious with our indications for injection therapy.

Prediction of intra-articular pathology and arthroscopic outcomes for femoroacetabular impingement and labral tear based on the response to preoperative anaesthetic hip joint injections

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated whether the preoperative response to intra-articular injections is associated with intra-articular pathological findings and arthroscopy outcomes.

METHODS

This study included 49 patients who underwent arthroscopic hip surgery for femoroacetabular impingement and labral tear after receiving preoperative hip joint injections. The response to anaesthetic injections was categorized as poor (0-50%) or good (51-100%). With respect to anatomical indices, we evaluated the lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA), acetabular roof obliquity (ARO), vertical-centre-anterior angle (VCA), and the alpha angle (on a lateral view). We evaluated the association between these indices (including the types of hip labral tears and cartilage damage) and the effectiveness of intra-articular injections.

RESULTS

The study included 22 men and 27 women, and the mean age of patients was 36.4 years. No statistically significant association was observed between the response to preoperative anaesthetic hip joint injections and patient demographics (age, sex) and anatomical indices (LCEA, ARO, VCA, and alpha angle) (p > 0.05). All patients showed labral damage; however, labral tear classification or cartilage damage was not significantly associated with the effectiveness of joint injections. At the 1-year post-operative follow-up, patients with a good response to anaesthetic hip joint injections showed a significantly better outcome than patients with a poor response to these injections (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The response to preoperative anaesthetic hip joint injections may indicate the presence of intra-articular pathology. Furthermore, this association may have predictive value in determining post-operative outcomes following hip arthroscopy.

Intra-Articular Viscosupplementation for Patients with Hip Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to review the efficacy and safety of intra-articular (IA) viscosupplementation (VS) for hip osteoarthritis (OA). MATERIAL AND METHODS We searched Medline, Clinical Trial Register Center, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VS with placebo injection for hip OA. We included suitable studies, assessed the quality of studies, and extracted data on pain reduction, function improvement at different time points, and safety profiles. The comparisons of pain and function outcome were performed by meta-analysis. RESULTS Five high-quality randomized controlled studies trials (RCTs) with 591 patients with hip OA were identified. Although several trials demonstrated a significant decline in pain in VS groups during follow-up compared to baseline, without severe adverse events, the pooled analysis did not show VS was superior to placebo at any time windows [7-14 days: standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.18; 95% CI, -0.47 to 0.10, p=0.21; 28-30 days: 0.02 (-0.15, 0.19), p=0.82; or at final visit: -0.14 (-0.46, 0.18), p=0.38]. Similar results were also observed in the combined data of functional results. CONCLUSIONS IA VS does not reduce pain or improve function significantly better than placebo in a short-term follow-up. The benefits and safety of VS should be further assessed by sufficiently-sized, methodologically sound studies with validated assessment of more clinically relevant end-points.

Recommendations for the Reporting of Harms in Manuscripts on Clinical Trials Assessing Osteoarthritis Drugs: A Consensus Statement from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

BACKGROUND

There is strong evidence of under-reporting of harms in manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared with the volume of raw data retrieved from these trials. Many guidelines have been developed to tackle this, but they have failed to address some important issues that would allow for standardization and transparency. As a consequence, harms reporting in manuscripts remains suboptimal.

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) aimed to deliver accurate recommendations for better reporting of harms in clinical trials manuscripts on anti-osteoarthritis (OA) drugs. These could help to better inform clinicians on harms recorded in RCTs and further help researchers conducting meta-analyses.

METHODS

Using the outcomes of several systematic reviews on the safety of anti-OA drugs, we summarized the ways in which harms have been reported in OA RCT manuscripts to date. Next, we drafted some recommendations and initiated a modified Delphi process that involved a panel of clinicians and clinical researchers to build an expert consensus on recommendations from the ESCEO for the reporting of harms in future manuscripts on RCTs assessing anti-OA drugs.

RESULTS

These recommendations emphasize that all treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) should always be taken into account for harms reporting, with no frequency threshold, and describe how specific AEs should be reported; they also provide a list of the most relevant organ systems to be considered according to each class of drug for reporting of harms within the results section of a manuscript. Irrespective of the drug, the ESCEO recommends that total, severe and serious AEs and withdrawals due to AEs should always be reported; guidance on the reporting of specific events pertaining to each category is provided. The ESCEO also recommends the reporting of information on drug effect on biological parameters, with specific guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations may contribute to improve transparency in the field of safety of anti-OA medications. Pharmaceutical companies developing drugs for OA, and researchers conducting clinical trials, are encouraged to comply with them when reporting harms-related results in manuscripts on RCTs. The ESCEO also encourages journals to refer to the ESCEO recommendations in their instructions to authors for the publication of manuscripts on trials of anti-OA medications.