Evaluation of ultrasonography guidance for single-puncture temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: A randomized clinical study

Evaluation of the effectiveness of different puncture points for second cannula in double puncture arthrocentesis of temporomandibular joint

The study at checking if treatment outcomes in double puncture temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis (DPTMJA) changed when the puncture points of the second cannula punctate were changed. Using a retrospective cohort study design, the investigators enrolled a sample of temporomandibular joint disorder (TMD, internal derangement) patients receiving DPTMJA. The decision of whether to perform a modified or traditional arthrocentesis was made by the patients: Patients who accepted the close cannula relationship were evaluated as group 1 (modification group), and those who did not agree as group 2 (traditional group). The predictor variable was puncture points of the second cannula (close to vs. far from the first cannula; group 1 and 2, respectively). The main outcome variables included maximum mouth opening (MMO), and pain assessed using a Likert-type (0-10) visual analogue scale (VAS) before treatment and at 1st day and 3rd months intervals. Appropriate statistics were computed using P < .05 was considered significant. The study sample comprised 32 patients (93.8% females; 50% in each study arm) with an average age of 36.9 ± 15.3 years (range, 18-78). Although, patient age and gender, and baseline VAS in both groups were not significant different (P > .05), the baseline MMO in group 2 was significant higher than that in group 1 (P = .03). The within-group analyses demonstrated the significant improvement of both MMO and VAS at postoperative month 3 (P < .05). However, the between-group analyses rejected the significant differences between the 2 groups at day 1 and month 3 (P > .05). Within the limitations of the study the choice of one or the other technique should be left to the discretion of the surgeon.

Clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation of ultrasound-guided single puncture temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis

Objective: To evaluate the effects of successful TMJ treatment on relief of pain, improvement of mandibular movement and capsular width with clinical and ultrasonography (US) findings. In this study, TMJ changes were evaluated by clinical and US examination after US-guided single-puncture arthrocentesis, which represents a novel approach.Methods: Clinical measurements were obtained before each procedure and at 1 day, 7 days, and 3 months thereafter. Capsular width was measured via the US at the 3-month follow-up.Results: Significant improvements were evident at the short term of 3 months post-arthrocentesis with supportive treatment, including splint therapy and jaw exercises.Conclusion: Arthrocentesis in conjunction with splint therapy and jaw exercises demonstrated significant clinical improvement at the short-term follow-up of 3 months. US imaging can be helpful for follow-up evaluation of the pre- and post-treatment capsule width. Longer follow-up studies are necessary to validate the effectiveness of this treatment protocol.

Ultrasound-guided vs conventional arthrocentesis for management of temporomandibular joint disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes between ultrasound (US)-guided arthrocentesis and conventional arthrocentesis for the management of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, BioMed Central, CENTRAL, and Google scholar databases were searched up to April 1 2020 for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing US-guided and conventional arthrocentesis.

RESULTS

Four RCTs were included. Pooled analysis did not demonstrate any statistically significant difference in pain or maximal mouth opening (MMO) scores after 1 week and 1 month of follow-up between US-guided and conventional arthrocentesis. Studies also reported data on intra-operative needle relocations and operating time but with conflicting results.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that the use of US during arthrocentesis may not improve postoperative pain and MMO in the short term. Data on intra-operative outcomes are scarce and conflicting for any definitive conclusions. Further high-quality adequately powered RCTs are required to strengthen current evidence.

Ultrasonography-guided arthrocentesis versus conventional arthrocentesis in treating internal derangement of temporomandibular joint: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review assessed the clinical question: 'Does ultrasonography (USG)-guided arthrocentesis provide better outcomes than conventional arthrocentesis in patients with temporomandibular disorder (TMD)?'

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. An initial search was performed on electronic databases-including Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Library-followed by manual and reference searches until the date September 27, 2019. The articles selected were evaluated for study and patient characteristics, arthrocentesis procedure details, and treatment outcomes (post-operative pain, maximum mouth opening (MMO), procedure time, and attempts of needle positioning). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group's data extraction template and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP).

RESULTS

Out of the 325 initially identified articles, four studies with 144 patients were included in the final qualitative analysis. No significant differences were found in pain reduction and improved MMO between sample groups receiving conventional arthrocentesis and USG-guided arthrocentesis. Needle positioning attempts and procedural times were conflicting between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found that the outcomes of USG-guided arthrocentesis were not superior to conventional arthrocentesis. Conflicting data was found in the attempts of needle positioning and procedural time. Standardized treatment protocols and data from well-designed USG-guided arthrocentesis randomized clinical trials were lacking.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Arthrocentesis with or without USG guidance are both effective for treating patients with TMD to reduce pain and to improve MMO. USG-guided arthrocentesis was not found to be superior to conventional arthrocentesis.

Is Single-Puncture TMJ Arthrocentesis Superior to the Double-Puncture Technique for the Improvement of Outcomes in Patients With TMDs?

PURPOSE

Arthrocentesis is a common treatment for temporomandibular joint disorders. Although modifications of the standard double-puncture technique have been described, no consensus has been reached regarding which is the best. The aim of the present study was to compare the outcomes of the single- and double-puncture arthrocentesis techniques (SPT and DPT, respectively).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review following the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines was performed. Two independent reviewers conducted electronic searches in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for relevant studies reported up to January 2019. Studies comparing type I SPT (only 1 cannula) or type II SPT (2 soldered cannulas) to conventional DPT were considered. Data regarding the maximal mouth opening (MMO), joint pain, and operative time were extracted for the meta-analysis. In the case of statistically significant heterogeneity (P < .10), a random effects model was used to assess the significance of the treatment effects. Otherwise, a fixed effects model was used. The included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed for methodologic quality using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included for qualitative synthesis. Two were suitable for quantitative synthesis per outcome. The meta-analysis did not find any differences between SPT and DPT in relation to the MMO. However, in relation to joint pain, the results slightly favored the use of DPT. No differences in operative time were found between type I SPT and DPT (P = .49).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study found no differences between the SPT and DPT in relation to the MMO, and no difference was found in operative time between the DPT and type I SPT. Because of the heterogeneity between studies, it might be interesting to conduct more homogeneous RCTs to elucidate which technique results in better clinical outcomes.