Injection Therapy in the Management of Musculoskeletal Injuries: Hand and Wrist

Ultrasound Imaging and Guidance in Common Wrist/Hand Pathologies

ABSTRACT

Wrist/hand pain is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition with a great spectrum of etiologies (varying from overuse injuries to soft tissue tumors). Although most of the anatomical structures are quite superficial and easily evaluated during physical examination, for several reasons, the use of ultrasound imaging and guidance has gained an intriguing and paramount concern in the prompt management of relevant patients. In this aspect, the present review aims to illustrate detailed cadaveric wrist/hand anatomy to shed light into better understanding the corresponding ultrasonographic examinations/interventions in carpal tunnel syndrome, trigger finger, de Quervain tenosynovitis, rhizarthrosis, and the radiocarpal joint arthritis. In addition, evidence from the literature supporting the rationale why ultrasound guidance is henceforth unconditional in musculoskeletal practice is also exemplified.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for trigger finger

BACKGROUND

Trigger finger is a common hand condition that occurs when movement of a finger flexor tendon through the first annular (A1) pulley is impaired by degeneration, inflammation, and swelling. This causes pain and restricted movement of the affected finger. Non-surgical treatment options include activity modification, oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), splinting, and local injections with anti-inflammatory drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To review the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) versus placebo, glucocorticoids, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route for trigger finger.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO trials portal until 30 September 2020. We applied no language or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of adult participants with trigger finger that compared NSAIDs administered topically, orally, or by injection versus placebo, glucocorticoid, or different NSAIDs administered by the same route.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more review authors independently screened the reports, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence. The seven major outcomes were resolution of trigger finger symptoms, persistent moderate or severe symptoms, recurrence of symptoms, total active range of finger motion, residual pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. Treatment effects were reported as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs conducted in an outpatient hospital setting were included (231 adult participants, mean age 58.6 years, 60% female, 95% to 100% moderate to severe disease). Both studies compared a single injection of a non-selective NSAID (12.5 mg diclofenac or 15.0 mg ketorolac) given at lower than normal doses with a single injection of a glucocorticoid (triamcinolone 20 mg or 5 mg), with maximum follow-up duration of 12 weeks or 24 weeks. In both studies, we detected risk of attrition and performance bias. One study also had risk of selection bias. The effects of treatment were sensitive to assumptions about missing outcomes. All seven outcomes were reported in one study, and five in the other. NSAID injection may offer little to no benefit over glucocorticoid injection, based on low- to very low-certainty evidence from two trials. Evidence was downgraded for bias and imprecision. There may be little to no difference between groups in resolution of symptoms at 12 to 24 weeks (34% with NSAIDs, 41% with glucocorticoids; absolute effect 7% lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% lower to 5% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence). The rate of persistent moderate to severe symptoms may be higher at 12 to 24 weeks in the NSAIDs group (28%) compared to the glucocorticoid group (14%) (absolute effect 14% higher, 95% CI 2% to 33% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.46; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs result in fewer recurrences at 12 to 24 weeks (1%) compared to glucocorticoid (21%) (absolute effect 20% lower, 95% CI 21% to 13% lower; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in mean total active motion at 24 weeks (235 degrees with NSAIDs, 240 degrees with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 5% lower, 95% CI 34.54% lower to 24.54% higher; 1 study, 99 participants; MD -5.00, 95% CI -34.54 to 24.54; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in residual pain at 12 to 24 weeks (20% with NSAIDs, 24% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 11% lower to 7% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups in participant-reported treatment success at 24 weeks (64% with NSAIDs, 68% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 4% lower, 95% CI 18% lower to 15% higher; 1 study, 121 participants; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAID injection has an effect on adverse events at 12 to 24 weeks (1% with NSAIDs, 1% with glucocorticoid) (absolute effect 0% difference, 95% CI 2% lower to 3% higher; 2 studies, 231 participants; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.42; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For adults with trigger finger, by 24 weeks' follow-up, results from two trials show that compared to glucocorticoid injection, NSAID injection offered little to no benefit in the treatment of trigger finger. Specifically, there was no difference in resolution, symptoms, recurrence, total active motion, residual pain, participant-reported treatment success, or adverse events.

Effect of Ulnar-Based Orthotics and Strengthening Exercises on Subjects With Ulnar Wrist Pain

CONTEXT

In comparison with the published research on the surgical management of ulnar wrist pain, fewer studies that discuss the nonsurgical management of ulnar wrist pain exist.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the effect of ulnar-based wrist orthotics and strengthening exercises on subjects with ulnar wrist pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled pilot study.

SETTING

Research laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty subjects with acute and subacute ulnar wrist pain and age ranging from 18 to 53.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive either ulnar-based orthotics, ulnar-based orthotics plus strengthening exercises, or placebo intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The authors measured pain and function using the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation questionnaire, and grip strength using the JAMAR dynamometer, at baseline and at 2- and 4-week postrandomization. A mixed analysis of variance modeling was used to investigate the effect of the intervention over time.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences between the 2 intervention groups and the control group regarding improvement in pain, function, and strength, whereas there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 intervention groups over the 3 measurement occasions regarding the outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, orthotics intervention is as effective as orthotics plus strengthening exercises in improving pain, function, and grip strength in subjects with ulnar wrist pain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 2b individual Randomized Controlled Trial.