To stop or not to stop novel oral anticoagulants prior to performing joint interventional maneuvers? Evidence from a prospective study that the therapy can be maintained

Anticoagulation is common in patients undergoing routine musculoskeletal interventional maneuvers. Previous retrospective studies have established the safety of continuing anticoagulation with novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) when performing this kind of interventions. Indeed, ultrasound (US)-guided interventional maneuvers have shown a superior safety profile compared to blind anatomical maneuvers. To evaluate prospectively the periprocedural bleeding events in NOAC-anticoagulated patients undergoing interventional articular or periarticular procedures. Consecutive patients diagnosed with inflammatory or degenerative rheumatologic pathology requiring interventional maneuvers were prospectively recruited. Group 1 was treated with NOACs, group 2 was treated with vitamin K antagonists, and group 3 was not anticoagulated. Prior to the international maneuver, NOAC therapy was continuously administered, in regimens dictated by the underlying anticoagulation indication. Demographics, comorbidities, laboratory parameters, locally administered medication (corticosteroids or viscosupplementation), interventional maneuver location, needle size, and local bleeding events were recorded. Post-procedural control was performed at 30 min, 48 h, and 7 days. No articular/periarticular bleeding event occurred in patients treated with NOACs, regardless of their type and dosage, locally administered medication, needle size, location, and number of interventions per individual. Several patients in all groups developed small superficial ecchymoses at the injection site. Our results suggest that NOACs are safe to be used in a continuous regimen prior to US-guided injections, even as dual antithrombotic therapy (in combination with aspirin). The use of lower gauge needles, chosen for viscosupplementation therapy, was not burdened with adverse effects on the procedural outcome. Key Points • Currently, no prospective studies have been performed to establish the safety of continuous NOAC anticoagulation when performing routine intra- or periarticular interventional maneuvers. • The study offers an extensive view on a wide spectrum of intra- and periarticular interventional maneuvers including anatomic targets and needle sizes that were not previously assessed. • The study offers a perspective into performing repetitive maneuvers in the same patient, both over a short time and at longer intervals. • The zero periprocedural bleeding risk observed in our study may reassure practitioners and suggest that US-guided interventional therapeutic interventions are safe in patients treated with a continuous regimen of different NOACs.

Incidence of Rapidly Progressive Osteoarthritis Following Intra-articular Hip Corticosteroid Injection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery recommends intra-articular corticosteroid injections (CSIs) for managing hip osteoarthritis (OA) based on short-term, prospective studies. Recent retrospective studies have raised concerns that CSIs may lead to rapidly progressive OA (RPOA). We sought to systematically review the literature of CSIs for hip OA to estimate the incidence of RPOA.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify original research of hip OA patients receiving CSIs. Overall, 27 articles involving 5831 patients published from 1988 to 2022 were included. Study design, patient characteristics, CSI details, follow-up, and cases of RPOA were recorded. Studies were classified by their ability to detect RPOA based on follow-up. Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate the incidence of RPOA for studies able to detect RPOA.

Results

The meta-analytic estimate of RPOA incidence was 6% (95% confidence interval, 3%-9%) based on 10 articles classified as able to detect RPOA. RPOA definitions varied from progression of OA within 6 months to the presence of destructive changes. These studies were subject to bias from excluding patients with missing post-CSI radiographs. The remaining 17 articles were classified as unable to detect RPOA, including all of the studies cited in the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery recommendation.

Conclusions

The incidence of RPOA after CSIs remains unknown due to variation in definitions and follow-up. While RPOA following CSIs may be 6%, many cases are not severe, and this may reflect selection bias. Further research is needed to understand whether clinically significant RPOA is incident enough to limit CSI use.

Outcomes of imaging-guided corticosteroid injections in hip and knee osteoarthritis patients: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the current literature on the use of image-guided corticosteroid injections in the treatment of patients with knee and hip OA.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a comprehensive literature search through June 30, 2022. Publication type, study design, imaging guidance modality, osteoarthritis severity, number of injections, steroid type and dose, anesthetic type and dose, the total number of patients, follow-up intervals, and measured outcomes were extracted from the included studies.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There were 23 included studies (10 hips, 12 knees, 1 both hip and knee). Hip injections were found to be effective in treating short- and long-term pain and more effective than hyaluronic acid, Mepivacaine, NSAIDs, and normal saline in terms of improvement in pain and/or function. There was less impact on QoL. Knee injections were found either to have little or no impact or were similar or inferior to comparison injections (intra-articular hyaluronic acid, PRP, NSAIDs, normal saline, adductor canal blocks). Study data could not be aggregated because the corticosteroid types and doses, methods of outcome assessment, and follow-up time points varied widely.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review found generally positive outcomes for the hip, but overall negative outcomes for the knee, although hip injections may carry a risk of serious adverse outcomes. A larger trial with uniform methodology is warranted. Specific studies on the adverse effects of corticosteroid injections are also warranted.

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.

Intraarticular Corticosteroids for Hip Osteoarthritis: A Review

INTRODUCTION

Hip osteoarthritis is a prevalent condition responsible for important pain and disability. Most available guidelines for nonsurgical management of hip osteoarthritis recommend a combination of nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatment modalities. Intraarticular corticosteroid injections have been used for decades, although evidence is quite scarce, and many controversies remain.

METHODS

This article reviews the available literature from Medline and Embase and discusses the evidence for intraarticular corticosteroid injections in hip osteoarthritis, where only 5 randomized controlled trials were found in the literature. These are analyzed in this article, which also aims to explain the main characteristics and features of glucocorticoids, along with their contraindications and potential adverse effects.

RESULTS

Available randomized controlled trials show that intraarticular corticosteroid injections provide pain relief and functional improvement in hip osteoarthritis. This efficacy has not been shown with intraarticular hyaluronic acid injections.

CONCLUSION

This review shows that intraarticular corticosteroid injections are efficacious in hip osteoarthritis and that this benefit can last up to 12 weeks.

Image-guided glucocorticoid injection versus injection without image guidance for shoulder pain

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread use, our 2012 Cochrane review did not confirm that use of imaging to guide glucocorticoid injection for people with shoulder pain improves its efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To update our review and assess the benefits and harms of image-guided glucocorticoid injection compared to non-image-guided injection for patients with shoulder pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, via Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and clinicaltrials.gov to 15 Feb 2021, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx) to 06 July 2020. We also screened reference lists of retrieved review articles and trials to identify potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared image-guided glucocorticoid injection to injection without image guidance (either landmark-guided or intramuscular) injection in patients with shoulder pain (rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis or mixed or undefined shoulder pain). Major outcomes were pain, function, proportion of participants with treatment success, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. Minor outcomes were shoulder range of motion and proportion of participants requiring surgery or additional injections. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials were included (1035 participants). Fourteen trials included participants with rotator cuff disease, four with adhesive capsulitis, and one with mixed or undefined shoulder pain. Trial size varied from 28 to 256 participants, most participants were female, mean age ranged between 31 and 60 years, and mean symptom duration varied from 2 to 23 months. Two trials were at low risk of bias for all criteria. The most notable sources of bias in the remaining trials included performance bias and detection bias. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) indicates that ultrasound-guided injection probably provides little or no clinically important benefits compared with injection without guidance with respect to pain (15 trials) or function (14 trials) at three to six weeks follow-up. It may not improve quality of life (2 trials, low-certainty evidence, downgraded due to potential for bias and imprecision) and we are uncertain about the effect of ultrasound-guided injection on participant-rated treatment success due to very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias, inconsistency and imprecision). Mean pain (scale range 0 to 10, higher scores indicate more pain) was 3.1 points with injection without image guidance and 0.5 points better (0.2 points better to 0.8 points better; 1003 participants, 15 trials) with an ultrasound-guided injection. This represents a slight difference for pain (0.5 to 1.0 points on a 0 to 10 scale). Mean function (scale range 0 to 100, higher scores indicate better function) was 68 points with injection without image guidance and 2.4 points better (0.2 points worse to 5.1 points better; 895 participants, 14 trials) with an ultrasound-guided injection. Mean quality of life (scale range 0 to 100, higher scores indicate better quality of life) was 65 with injection without image guidance and 2.8 points better (0.7 worse to 6.4 better; 220 participants, 2 trials) with an ultrasound-guided injection. In five trials (350 participants), 101/175 (or 606 per 1000) people in the ultrasound-guided group reported treatment success compared with 68/175 (or 389 per 1000) people in the group injected without image guidance (RR 1.56 (95% CI 0.89 to 2.75)), an absolute difference of 22% more reported success (4% fewer to 62% more). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) indicates that ultrasound-guided injections may not reduce the risk of adverse events compared to injections without image guidance. In five trials (402 participants), 38/200 (or 181 per 1000) people in the ultrasound-guided group reported adverse events compared with 51/202 (or 252 per 1000) in the non-image-guided injection group (RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.28)), an absolute difference of 7% fewer adverse events (15% fewer to 7% more). Five trials reported that there were no serious adverse events. The remaining trials did not report serious adverse events. One trial reported that 1/53 (or 19 per 1000) in the injection without image guidance group and 0/53 in the ultrasound-guided group withdrew due to adverse events. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the effects for pain and function may have been influenced by selection bias, and the effects for function may have been influenced by detection bias. The test for subgroup differences indicated there were unlikely to be differences in pain and function across different shoulder conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our updated review does not support use of image guidance for injections in the shoulder. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that ultrasound-guided injection in the treatment of shoulder pain probably provides little or no benefit over injection without imaging in terms of pain or function and low-certainty evidence indicates there may be no difference in quality of life. We are uncertain if ultrasound-guided injection improves participant-rated treatment success, due to very low-certainty evidence. Low-certainty evidence also suggests ultrasound-guided injection may not reduce the risk of adverse events compared with non-image-guided injection. No serious adverse events were reported in any trial. The lack of significant benefit of image guidance over injection without image guidance to improve patient-relevant outcomes or reduce harms, suggests that any added cost of image guidance appears unjustified.

Trends in Utilization of Image Guidance for Hip Joint Injections

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate trends in utilization of image guidance for intraarticular hip injections and to compare the cost efficiency of ultrasound-, fluoroscopic-, and landmark-guided injections in the management of hip osteoarthritis (OA) and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).

DESIGN

Retrospective descriptive epidemiology study.

SETTING

The information was collected from Humana private payer insurance claims database encompassing all practice settings.

PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS

A total of 302 855 patients for years 2007 to 2015.

INTERVENTIONS OR ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS OR INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Primary diagnosis of hip OA or FAI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Injection type [corticosteroid (CS) or hyaluronic acid (HA)], imaging modality (landmark, ultrasound, or fluoroscopic guidance), and costs.

RESULTS

Landmark-guided CS and HA injections for the management of hip OA decreased, whereas fluoroscopic and ultrasound guidance increased. Similar trends were demonstrated in the management of FAI using CS. In the management of FAI using HA, landmark- and ultrasound-guided injections decreased and fluoroscopic-guided injections increased. Cost analysis revealed lower reimbursement of landmark and ultrasound guidance compared with fluoroscopic guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

During the study period, there was an increase in the use of image guidance and decline in landmark guidance for the treatment of OA and FAI using CS and HA. Fluoroscopic guidance demonstrated increased reimbursement compared with landmark and fluoroscopic guidance. There is an opportunity to mitigate cost and reduce radiation exposure by using ultrasound-guided injections rather than fluoroscopic guidance.

Image-Guided Intra-articular Hip Injections and Risk of Infection After Hip Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

Although intra-articular injections are important in the management of patients who may later undergo hip arthroscopy, conflicting data are available regarding the safety of such injections when administered within 3 months of surgery. Furthermore, despite the increasing use of image-guided intra-articular hip injections, it is unknown whether the type of imaging modality used is associated with infection after hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE

To assess the risk of infection associated with image-guided intra-articular injections before hip arthroscopy and, secondarily, compare that risk between ultrasound (US) and fluoroscopic (FL) guidance.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients in a large national insurance database who underwent hip arthroscopy between 2007 and 2017. Patients were required to have continuous enrollment from at least 1 year before to 6 months after hip arthroscopy. Patient age, sex, geographic region, medical history, surgical details, and hip injections were collected. Patients who underwent injection ≤3 months preoperatively and >3 to ≤12 months preoperatively were compared with patients who did not undergo preoperative injection. Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess the association between ipsilateral preoperative hip injection and surgical site infection within 6 months of surgery.

RESULTS

We identified 17,987 patients (36.3% female; mean ± SD age, 37.6 ± 14.0 years) undergoing hip arthroscopy, 2276 (12.7%) of whom had an image-guided hip injection in the year preceding surgery (53.0% FL). Patients who underwent intra-articular injection ≤3 months preoperatively had similar infection rates to patients who did not undergo preoperative injection in the year before surgery for both the FL (0.46% vs 0.46%; P≥ .995) and the US cohorts (0.50% vs 0.46%; P = .76). Results persisted in adjusted analysis (FL ≤3 months: OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.32-3.37; P = .94; US ≤3 months: OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.36-3.90; P = .78). Similar results were seen for patients undergoing injections >3 to ≤12 months preoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative infection was rare in patients undergoing intra-articular hip injection ≤3 months before hip arthroscopy and was no more common than in patients not undergoing preoperative injection. Moreover, no differences were seen in infection risk between US and FL guidance. Although intra-articular hip injections should always be administered with careful consideration, these results do not suggest that these injections are uniformly contraindicated in the 3 months preceding hip arthroscopy.

Do preoperative intra-articular corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid injections affect time to total joint arthroplasty?

INTRODUCTION

Intra-articular corticosteroid (CSI) or hyaluronic acid (HAI) injections alleviate symptoms of osteoarthritis in patients who may be candidates for total hip or total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). However, their effect on time to total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and complications remains uncertain. We sought to evaluate (1) delay in time to surgery for patients receiving injections prior to THA/TKA (2) incidence of patients that receive injections, (3) type and number of injections, and (4) compare complication rates between patients with and without injections.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 3340 consecutive TJA (1770 THA and 1570 TKA). Patients were divided into two cohorts depending if they received preoperative intra-articular injection or not. We identified dates of first clinic presentation and index surgery, injection type, total administered, and 90-day complications, including periprosthetic joint infection.

RESULTS

150/1770 THA and 192/1570 TKA patients received injections (8.5%vs.12.2%,p = 0.0004). Time from first presentation to clinic to TJA was significantly greater in patients receiving injections [12.4 ± 11 months vs.7.3 ± 10.7,p < 0.001 for THA; 20.0 ± 17.4 months vs.11.6 ± 15.4,p < 0.001 for TKA]. This delay in time was greater in TKA versus THA (8.4 months vs.5.1,p < 0.001). TKA patients had a higher incidence of receiving HAI versus THA patients (9%vs.0.6%,p < 0.0001). There were no differences in overall complication profiles (p = 0.19 for THA, p = 0.3 for TKA).

CONCLUSION

Injections are associated with an increased time to TJA by a statistically significant amount, however its clinical significance is debatable. Injections are safe if administered at least three months preoperatively. If patients present with appropriate surgical indications and are ready, we do not recommend intra-articular injections to delay surgery.

Ultrasonography-guided intra-articular steroid injection in the hip for symptomatic round ligament partial tear or degeneration

Purpose

The objectives of this study were to demonstrate the benefits of ultrasonography-guided intra-articular steroid injection in the hip (UISIH) for the treatment of partial tear or degeneration of the round ligament of the femur and to determine the prognostic factors for this treatment.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 40 patients who were diagnosed with a partial tear or degeneration of the round ligament of the femur and who underwent UISIH between August 2014 and November 2018. The inclusion criteria were a lack of history of UISIH or other interventional procedure and the presence of follow-up records after the hip injection. The short-term clinical outcome was evaluated at the first follow-up appointment after UISIH. Possible prognostic factors for UISIH such as age, sex, injection side, and average follow-up time were analyzed using the chi-square test, the Fisher exact test, and the t test.

Results

UISIH was found to have been effective in 35 of the 40 patients (87.5%) at the first follow-up visit. The average follow-up time was 43 days. No significant differences were observed in the clinical outcome of UISIH with respect to age, sex, injection side, or follow-up time.

Conclusion

In this study, we demonstrated that UISIH was a safe and effective treatment in patients with a partial tear or degeneration of the round ligament of the femur over the course of short-term follow-up. Age, sex, injection side, and follow-up time were not identified as prognostic factors for this treatment.

Hip Joint Effusion-Synovitis Is Associated With Hip Pain and Sports/Recreation Function in Female Professional Ballet Dancers

OBJECTIVE

To compare hip joint effusion-synovitis prevalence in professional ballet dancers with nondancing athletes and to evaluate the relationship between effusion-synovitis and clinical measures and cartilage defects.

DESIGN

Case-control study.

SETTING

Elite ballet and sport.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-nine professional ballet dancers and 49 age-matched and sex-matched athletes.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Group (dancers/athletes), sex, age, years of training, Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Scores (HAGOSs), hip rotation range of motion (ROM), generalized joint hypermobility (GJH), and hip cartilage defect scores.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Hip joint effusion-synovitis (absent, grade 1 = 2-4 mm, grade 2 = >4 mm) scored with 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

Hip joint effusion-synovitis was found in 22 (45%) dancers and 13 (26.5%) athletes (P = 0.06). Grade 2 effusion-synovitis was only found in dancers (n = 8, r = 0.31, P = 0.009). The prevalence of effusion-synovitis was similar in men (n = 11, 26%) and women (n = 24, 43%, P = 0.09). Female dancers with effusion-synovitis had lower HAGOS pain (r = 0.63, P = 0.001) and sports/recreation scores (r = 0.66, P = 0.001) compared with those without effusion-synovitis. The HAGOS scores were not related to effusion-synovitis in male dancers or female and male athletes (P > 0.01 for all). Effusion-synovitis was not related to hip ROM, GJH, or cartilage defect scores (P > 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Hip joint effusion-synovitis was related to higher levels of pain and lower sports/recreation function in female ballet dancers. Effusion-synovitis was not related to hip rotation ROM, GJH or cartilage defects. Larger sized joint effusion-synovitis was exclusively found in dancers.

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

Purpose

The aim of this current review was to confirm the efficacy of intra-articular steroid therapy (IAST) for patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) and discuss the duration and influential factors of IAST.

Methods

Online databases (Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science) were searched from inception to May 2019. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and noncontrolled trials assessing the efficacy of hip IAST on pain were included. Common demographics data were extracted using a standardized form. Quality was assessed on the basis of Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence.

Results

12 trials met the inclusion criteria. According to data from individual trials, IAST had significant efficacy on hip OA in both immediate and delay pain reduction, which persisted up to 12 weeks after IAST. The influences of the baseline severity of hip OA or synovitis and injection dose or volume on the clinical outcome of IAST were still controversial. The IAST appeared to be well tolerant by most of the participants.

Conclusion

IAST was proved to be an efficacious therapy in both immediate and delay pain reduction for hip OA patients within 12 weeks. The longer follow-up data of efficacy and safety and potentially influential factors are still unclear and needed further confirmation.

Can effusion-synovitis measured on ultrasound or MRI predict response to intra-articular steroid injection in hip osteoarthritis?

OBJECTIVES

Intra-articular steroid injection (IASI) is an effective therapy for hip osteoarthritis (OA), but carries risks and provides significant pain relief to only two thirds of patients. We attempted to predict response to IASI in hip OA patients using baseline clinical, ultrasound, and MRI data.

METHODS

Observational study of 97 subjects with symptomatic hip OA presenting for IASI. At baseline and 8 weeks we obtained hip MRI, grayscale and Doppler ultrasound, clinical range of motion (ROM), timed-up and go test (TUG) scores, and self-reported Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) pain, stiffness, and function scores. Bone-capsule distance (BCD) measurements of inflammation on hip ultrasound and MRI were measured at three locations: the proximal-most uncovered portion of the femoral head, the superficial-most (apex) portion of the femoral head, and the largest fluid pocket at the femoral neck.

RESULTS

Ultrasound and MRI BCD correlated with each other significantly and strongly at the apex and neck. Power Doppler findings did not correlate significantly with any other imaging indices. Eight weeks post-injection, WOMAC pain, function, and stiffness scores significantly improved and TUG time improved nearly to the level of significance, but there were no significant changes in ultrasound, MRI, or Doppler indices. Baseline variables were not significantly different between responder and nonresponder WOMAC pain or TUG time cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Basic measures of inflammation on ultrasound and MRI are highly related to each other, but provide little insight into patient function and pain after IASI. Other mechanisms to explain improvement in patient status after IASI are likely at work.

Short-Term Outcomes of Treatment of Hip Osteoarthritis With 4 Bone Marrow Concentrate Injections: A Case Series

The use of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow concentrate (BMC) has become an increasingly popular option as an alternative to total joint replacement. Although there is evidence to support the use of BMC injections to improve quality of life for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), there is limited evidence to support its use in patients with hip OA. This case series provides the short-term outcomes of 4 hip OA patients who each underwent 4 BMC injections. On average, the last follow-up was administered 3.5 months after the first injection. The results show that patients experienced decreased resting and active pain compared with baseline and mean 72.4% total overall improvement. Patients also reported less difficulty in performing daily activities following the procedure. These encouraging results warrant further research to better understand the effects of BMC injections on hip OA.

A Vascular Obstacle in Ultrasound-Guided Hip Joint Injection

Background:

We evaluated the risk of lateral circumflex femoral artery (LCFA) injury during ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injections.

Methods:

This study was divided into three parts. (1) Four ultrasound-guided hip injections were performed on human cadavers. With needles in place, tissues were dissected to expose the LCFA. (2) Ultrasound-trained rheumatologists marked a planned needle trajectory from skin to hip joint on live human ultrasound images during an Observed Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Doppler was subsequently activated to locate the LCFA, and the distance between trajectory and arterial signal was recorded. (3) Rheumatologists certified in musculoskeletal ultrasound were surveyed about joint injection vascular complications.

Results:

(1) In one of the four cadaveric dissections, the needle made direct contact with the LCFA. (2) Of 27 OSCE participants, only two activated Doppler before marking simulated hip injection trajectories. Trajectories passed through LCFA Doppler signal in six (22%) cases. Mean minimal distance from trajectory to arterial signal was 4 mm (range, 0–11 mm). (3) Of 62 survey respondents, 24% stated that they did not use Doppler routinely. While none reported bleeding injuries with their patients, 16% knew of a hip injection-related vascular complication performed by another provider.

Conclusion:

There is a risk of LCFA injury during ultrasound-guided hip joint injection. Routine use of Doppler should be considered in standard hip injection protocols.

Clinimetrics of ultrasound pathologies in osteoarthritis: systematic literature review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to systematically review clinimetrics of commonly assessed ultrasound pathologies in knee, hip and hand osteoarthritis (OA), and to conduct a meta-analysis for each clinimetric.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inceptions to September 2016. According to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Instrument Selection Algorithm, data extraction focused on ultrasound technical features and performance metrics. Methodological quality was assessed with modified 19-item Downs and Black score and 11-item Quality Appraisal of Diagnostic Reliability (QAREL) score. Separate meta-analyses were performed for clinimetrics: (1) inter-rater/intra-rater reliability; (2) construct validity; (3) criteria validity; and (4) internal/external responsiveness. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Excel and Comprehensive Meta-analysis were used.

RESULT

Our search identified 1126 records; of these, 100 were eligible, including a total of 8542 patients and 32,373 joints. The average Downs and Black score was 13.01, and average QAREL was 5.93. The stratified meta-analysis was performed only for knee OA, which demonstrated moderate to substantial reliability [minimum kappa > 0.44(0.15,0.74), minimum intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.82(0.73-0.89)], weak construct validity against pain (r = 0.12 to 0.27), function (r = 0.15 to 0.23), and blood biomarkers (r = 0.01 to 0.21), but weak to strong correlation with plain radiography (r = 0.13 to 0.60), strong association with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) [minimum r = 0.60(0.52,0.67)] and strong discrimination against symptomatic patients (OR = 3.08 to 7.46). There was strong criterion validity against cartilage histology [r = 0.66(-0.05,0.93)], and small to moderate internal [standardized mean difference(SMD) = 0.20 to 0.58] and external (r = 0.35 to 0.43) responsiveness to interventions.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound demonstrated strong criterion validity with cartilage histology, poor to strong correlation with patient findings and MRI, moderate reliability, and low responsiveness to interventions.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO

CRD42016039954.

Existing Evidence on Ultrasound-Guided Injections in Sports Medicine

Office-based ultrasonography has become increasingly available in many settings, and its use to guide joint and soft tissue injections has increased. Numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the use of ultrasound-guided injections over traditional landmark-guided injections, with a rapid growth in the literature over the past few years. A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted to demonstrate increased accuracy of ultrasound-guided injections regardless of anatomic location. In the upper extremity, ultrasound-guided injections have been shown to provide superior benefit to landmark-guided injections at the glenohumeral joint, the subacromial space, the biceps tendon sheath, and the joints of the hand and wrist. Ultrasound-guided injections of the acromioclavicular and the elbow joints have not been shown to be more efficacious. In the lower extremity, ultrasound-guided injections at the knee, ankle, and foot have superior efficacy to landmark-guided injections. Conclusive evidence is not available regarding improved efficacy of ultrasound-guided injections of the hip, although landmark-guided injection is performed less commonly at the hip joint. Ultrasound-guided injections are overall more accurate than landmark-guided injections. While current studies indicate that ultrasound guidance improves efficacy and cost-effectiveness of many injections, these studies are limited and more research is needed.

PANLAR Consensus Recommendations for the Management in Osteoarthritis of Hand, Hip, and Knee

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this consensus is to update the recommendations for the treatment of hand, hip, and knee osteoarthritis (OA) by agreeing on key propositions relating to the management of hand, hip, and knee OA, by identifying and critically appraising research evidence for the effectiveness of the treatments and by generating recommendations based on a combination of the available evidence and expert opinion of 18 countries of America.

METHODS

Recommendations were developed by a group of 48 specialists of rheumatologists, members of other medical disciplines (orthopedics and physiatrists), and three patients, one for each location of OA. A systematic review of existing articles, meta-analyses, and guidelines for the management of hand, hip, and knee OA published between 2008 and January 2014 was undertaken. The scores for Level of Evidence and Grade of Recommendation were proposed and fully consented within the committee based on The American Heart Association Evidence-Based Scoring System. The level of agreement was established through a variation of Delphi technique.

RESULTS

Both "strong" and "conditional" recommendations are given for management of hand, hip, and knee OA and nonpharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical modalities of treatment are presented according to the different levels of agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations are based on the consensus of clinical experts from a wide range of disciplines taking available evidence into account while balancing the benefits and risks of nonpharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical treatment modalities, and incorporating their preferences and values. Different backgrounds in terms of patient education or drug availability in different countries were not evaluated but will be important.

Intra-Articular Injections in Patients with Femoroacetabular Impingement: a Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind, Cross-over Study

We evaluated and compared the effectiveness of intra-articular injection of hip joint using hyaluronic acid and steroid in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Thirty patients with FAI clinically and radiologically were enrolled and underwent hip injection using steroid (TA) or hyaluronic acid (HA) at 0-weeks with cross-over injection at 2-weeks in patients without clinical response of decrease of pain intensity less than 2-point. Patients were followed up to 12-weeks for pain intensity (Numeric rating scale, NRS: 0-10), hip disability score (HOOS), oral medication and adverse events. In 17 patients without cross-over, HOOS at 2-weeks was improved significantly in patients with HA injection (mean increase of HOOS = 13.8 with HA vs. -2.2 with TA, P = 0.031) without difference of NRS (P = 0.943). In 13 patients with cross-over, NRS was significantly improved at 2-weeks with first TA injection (mean decrease of NRS= 1.7 with first TA vs. 0.3 with first HA, P = 0.036), without difference of HOOS (P = 0.431). At 4-weeks, NRS and HOOS were significantly different according to injection drugs (NRS: 0.9 with TA first and HA later vs. 2.7 with HA first and TA later, P = 0.001; mean increase of HOOS: 5.3 with TA first and HA later vs. 10.2 with HA first and TA later, P = 0.032). Intra-articular hip injection may be effective in FAI, with faster effect of pain improvement by TA and more delayed effect of function improvement by HA.

Outcomes After Diagnostic Hip Injection

PURPOSE

To provide a comprehensive review of outcomes associated with local anesthetic (LA) or LA and corticosteroid (CS) diagnostic hip injections, and how well response predicts subsequent operative success.

METHODS

A systematic review from database (PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase) inception to January 2015 for English-language articles reporting primary patient outcomes data was performed, excluding studies with >50% underlying osteoarthritis. Studies were assessed by 2 reviewers who collected pertinent data.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included, reporting on a total 337 patients undergoing diagnostic hip injection. The mean age was 34.4 years, with 5 studies reporting 94 (35.2%) males and 173 (64.8%) females. One study examined the rate of pain relief with LA (92.5%); 2 CS studies reported relief on a scale from 0% to 100% (no to complete relief), ranging from 61% to 82.3%; and 3 studies used 10-point pain scales, with a CS study noting a pain score of 1.0, an LA study with a score of 3.03, and 1 study using either CS or LA scores of 3 to 5.6. Duration of pain relief was 9.8 (CS) and 2.35 days (LA). By pathology, greatest relief was achieved in acetabular chondral injury (93.3%) and least in cam impingement (81.6%), with clinical and imaging findings being unreliable predictors of relief. One study showed nonresponse to be a strong predictor of negative surgical outcome for femoroacetabular impingement.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic hip injections provide substantial pain relief for patients with various hip pathologies, with limited data to suggest greatest relief for those with chondral injury. Clinical and imaging findings are unreliable predictors of injection response, and nonresponse to injection is a strong negative predictor of surgical outcome. Future research should focus on elucidating differences by underlying pathology and predicting future operative success.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review.

Ultrasound-Guided Hip Procedures

This article describes the techniques for performing ultrasound-guided procedures in the hip region, including intra-articular hip injection, iliopsoas bursa injection, greater trochanter bursa injection, ischial bursa injection, and piriformis muscle injection. The common indications, pitfalls, accuracy, and efficacy of these procedures are also addressed.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in coxitis

OBJECTIVES

Hip involvement is common in rheumatological diseases but can be difficult to diagnose, especially in absence of MRI. B-mode ultrasound (US) detects joint capsule distention while distinguishing effusion from proliferative synovial tissue is strenuous since both appear hypoechoic. Power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS) often fails to detect vascularisation in the hip. We therefore evaluated contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the hip joint.

METHODS

We investigated 36 hip joints of patients with known rheumatological joint diseases presenting with hip pain and 5 hips of healthy controls using B-mode US, PDUS and CEUS. We assessed CEUS hypervascularisation semiquantitatively comparing to the periarticular tissue. In B-mode, we measured the distance between femoral neck and joint capsule (DNC) and compared the results to the avascular intraarticular margin (AIM) in CEUS using t-tests and crosstables.

RESULTS

PDUS signals were received in only 2/36 cases (5.6%). B-mode US established the diagnosis of coxitis in 64% of all symptomatic hip joints. In 4 cases (11%), the diagnosis was revised after the use of CEUS. In patients with definite coxitis, 14 hips (73.7%) showed CEUS hypervascularisation°2, five°1 (26.3%) and none°0 (χ²=3.277, P<0.001). The difference DNC/AIM was highly significant in patients with hip pain (P<0.001, 95% CI: 2.054-4.684) and those with definite coxitis (P<0.001, 95% CI: 3.268-7.258).

CONCLUSIONS

In most cases, clinical parameters together with B-mode US findings are sufficient to diagnose coxitis. However, CEUS is capable of visualizing and quantifying the degree of hypervascularisation and enables the discrimination between effusion and proliferative synovial tissue.

The Timing of Total Hip Arthroplasty After Intraarticular Hip Injection Affects Postoperative Infection Risk

BACKGROUND

The data regarding any association between preoperative intraarticular steroid injection and risk ofperiprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) are conflicting. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the association of preoperative intraarticular hip injection before THA on the incidence of postoperative PJI.

METHODS

A national database was queried for patients who underwent THA and those patients who underwent prior ipsilateral hip injection. Three cohorts were created: THA within 3 months of ipsilateral hip injection (n = 829), THA between 3 and 6 months after ipsilateral hip injection (n= 1379), and THA between 6 and 12months after ipsilateral hip injection (n=1160). A control group of THAwithout prior injectionwas created for comparison purposes (n=31,229). The rate of postoperative infectionwas compared between injection cohorts and controls.

RESULTS

The incidence of infection after THA at 3 months (2.41%; odds ratio, 1.9; P = .004) and 6 months (3.74%; odds ratio, 1.5; P < .019) was significantly higher in the patients who underwent hip injection within 3months before THA comparedwith controls. Therewas no significant difference in infection rates in patients who underwent THA between 3 and 6months or 6 and 12months after ipsilateral hip injection compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrates a significant increase in PJI in patients who underwent intraarticular hip injection within 3 months before THA. This association was not noted when THA was more than 3 months after injection.

Ultrasound-guided procedures in rheumatology. What is the evidence?

Ultrasound (US) is a cost-effective, noninvasive, and accessible imaging modality that clinicians use at the point of care to assess disease activity and therapeutic efficacy in different rheumatic conditions. It can play a relevant role in invasive procedures performed by the rheumatologist, potentially ensuring a higher degree of accuracy. However, US-guided injections are still underused, and the conventional blind injection the most commonly adopted approach. In this article, we analyze the current evidence supporting the use of US-guided procedures, emphasizing comparative studies between conventional and US-guided procedures and their benefits in the daily rheumatological practice.

American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine

The use of diagnostic and interventional ultrasound has significantly increased over the past decade. A majority of the increased utilization is by nonradiologists. In sports medicine, ultrasound is often used to guide interventions such as aspirations, diagnostic or therapeutic injections, tenotomies, releases, and hydrodissections. This American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement critically reviews the literature and evaluates the accuracy, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided injections in major, intermediate, and small joints, and soft tissues, all of which are commonly performed in sports medicine. New ultrasound-guided procedures and future trends are also briefly discussed. Based upon the evidence, the official AMSSM position relevant to each subject is made.

Utility of Intra-articular Hip Injections for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review

Background:

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a condition that is becoming increasingly recognized as a common etiology of hip pain in athletes, adolescents, and adults. However, history and clinical examination are often inconclusive in reaching a diagnosis, while imaging often detects asymptomatic abnormalities. Treatment has traditionally been limited to surgery, with the role of conservative management remaining unclear.

Purpose:

To evaluate the utility of the intra-articular hip injection in the diagnosis and management of FAI.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were screened in duplicate for studies published between January 1946 and January 2014. Search terms included femoroacetabular impingement, hip impingement, and intra-articular injection. Quality assessment using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scale was completed for all included studies. Data evaluated included study design, study objectives, number of hips, injected product, duration of pain relief, and outcomes measured.

Results:

Our search yielded 8 studies involving 281 hips. Studies were categorized into diagnostic (4 studies), therapeutic (3 studies), and prognostic (1 study) applications. Patients with FAI and its degenerative sequelae obtained greater relief from diagnostic intra-articular hip injection than those without (P < .05). The diagnostic intra-articular injection performed under ultrasound guidance was better tolerated than injections performed under fluoroscopic guidance (pain rating, 5.6 vs 3.0; P < .1). Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid was the most effective at providing pain relief (in 23 patients), with significant improvements of functional outcome measures (Harris Hip Score, visual analog scale) present at 12 months. Pooled results with corticosteroid injection resulted in improvement in only 15% (9/60) of patients at 6 weeks. A negative response to intra-articular hip injection was a strong predictor for poor surgical outcomes.

Conclusion:

The results of this review suggest that (1) pain relief obtained from an intra-articular hip injection supports a diagnosis of FAI, (2) therapeutic relief at 12 months may be achieved, particularly with hyaluronic acid, and (3) a negative response to preoperative injections may predict poor short-term surgical outcomes. Additional large studies are required to build on the small number of studies included in this review, and further delineate the role of intra-articular hip injection in the management of FAI.

Symposium: evidence for the use of intra-articular cortisone or hyaluronic acid injection in the hip

The primary purpose of this review article is to discuss the role of diagnostic, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) and femoroacetabular impingement (FIA). These treatments play an important biological role in the non-operative management of these conditions. Two independent reviewers performed an search of PubMed for articles that contained at least one of the following search terms pertaining to intra-articular hip injection-local anaesthetic, diagnostic, ultrasound, fluoroscopic, image guided, corticosteroid, HA, PRP, OA, labral tears and FAI. Seventy-two full text articles were suitable for inclusion. There were 18 articles addressing the efficacy of diagnostic intra-articular hip injections. With respect to efficacy in OA there were 25 articles pertaining to efficacy of corticosteroid, 22 of HA and 4 of PRP. There were three articles addressing the efficacy of biologics in FAI. Diagnostic intra-articular hip injections are sensitive and specific for differentiating between intra-articular, extra-articular and spinal causes of hip symptoms. Ultrasound and fluoroscopy improves the precision of intra-articular positioning of diagnostic injections. Corticosteroids are more effective than HA and PRP in alleviating pain from hip OA. A higher dose of corticosteroids produces a longer benefit but volume of injection has no significant effect. Intra-articular corticosteroids do not increase infection rates of subsequent arthroplasty. There is currently limited evidence to warrant the routine use of therapeutic injections in the management of labral tears and FIA.

American Medical Society for Sports Medicine position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine

The use of diagnostic and interventional ultrasound has significantly increased over the past decade. A majority of the increased utilization is by nonradiologists. In sports medicine, ultrasound is often used to guide interventions such as aspirations, diagnostic or therapeutic injections, tenotomies, releases, and hydrodissections. This American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement critically reviews the literature and evaluates the accuracy, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided injections in major, intermediate, and small joints, and soft tissues, all of which are commonly performed in sports medicine. New ultrasound-guided procedures and future trends are also briefly discussed. Based on the evidence, the official AMSSM position relevant to each subject is made.

Pilot study of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid hip injections by emergency physicians

Introduction

Our objective was to assess the efficacy of ultrasound-guided hip injections performed by emergency physicians (EPs) for the treatment of chronic hip pain in an outpatient clinic setting.

Methods

Patients were identified on a referral basis from the orthopedic chronic pain clinic. The patient population was either identified as having osteoarthritis of the hip, osteonecrosis of varying etiologies, post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the hip, or other non-infectious causes of chronic hip pain. Patients had an ultrasound-guided hip injection of 4ml of 0.5% bupivacaine and 1ml of triamcinolone acetate (40mg/1ml). Emergency medicine resident physicians under the supervision of an attending EP performed all injections. Pain scores were collected using a Likert pain scale from patients prior to the procedure, and 10 minutes post procedure and at short-term follow-up of one week and one month. The primary outcome was patient-reported pain score on a Likert pain scale at one week.

Results

We performed a total of 47 ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injections on 44 subjects who met inclusion criteria. Three subjects received bilateral injections. Follow-up data were available for 42/47 (89.4%) hip injections at one week and 40/47 (85.1%) at one month. The greatest improvement was at 10 minutes after injection with a mean decrease in Likert pain score from pre-injection baseline of 5.57 (95% CI, 4.76–6.39). For the primary outcome at one week, we found a mean decrease in Likert pain score from pre-injection baseline of 3.85 (95% CI, 2.94–4.75). At one month we found a mean decrease in Likert pain score of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.12–2.53). There were no significant adverse outcomes reported.

Conclusion

Under the supervision of an attending EP, junior emergency medicine resident physicians can safely and effectively inject hips for chronic pain relief in an outpatient clinical setting using ultrasound guidance.

American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine

BACKGROUND

The use of diagnostic and interventional ultrasound has significantly increased over the past decade. A majority of the increased utilisation is by non-radiologists. In sports medicine, ultrasound is often used to guide interventions such as aspirations, diagnostic or therapeutic injections, tenotomies, releases and hydrodissections.

OBJECTIVE

Critically review the literature related to the accuracy, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided injections (USGIs) in major, intermediate and small joints; and soft tissues.

DESIGN

Systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

USGIs are more accurate than landmark-guided injections (LMGIs; strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT) Evidence Rating=A). USGIs are more efficacious than LMGIs (SORT Evidence Rating=B). USGIs are more cost-effective than LMGIs (SORT Evidence Rating=B). Ultrasound guidance is required to perform many new procedures (SORT Evidence Rating=C).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this position statement indicate there is strong evidence that USGIs are more accurate than LMGI, moderate evidence that they are more efficacious and preliminary evidence that they are more cost-effective. Furthermore, ultrasound-guided (USG) is required to perform many new, advanced procedures and will likely enable the development of innovative USG surgical techniques in the future.

Imaging of non-osteochondral tissues in osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to describe imaging techniques for evaluation of non-osteochondral structures such as the synovium, menisci in the knee, labrum in the hip, ligaments and muscles and to review the literature from recent clinical and epidemiological studies of OA.

METHODS

This is a non-systematic narrative review of published literature on imaging of non-osteochondral tissues in OA. PubMed and MEDLINE search for articles published up to 2014, using the keywords osteoarthritis, synovitis, meniscus, labrum, ligaments, plica, muscles, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), scintigraphy, and positron emission tomography (PET).

RESULTS

Published literature showed imaging of non-osteochondral tissues in OA relies primarily on MRI and ultrasound. The use of semiquantitative and quantitative imaging biomarkers of non-osteochondral tissues in clinical and epidemiological OA studies is reported. We highlight studies that have compared both imaging methodologies directly, and those that have established a relationship between imaging biomarkers and clinical outcomes. We provide recommendations as to which imaging protocols should be used to assess disease-specific changes regarding synovium, meniscus in the knee, labrum in the hip, and ligaments, and highlight potential pitfalls in their usage.

CONCLUSION

MRI and ultrasound are currently the most useful imaging modalities for evaluation of non-osteochondral tissues in OA. MRI evaluation of any tissue needs to be performed using appropriate MR pulse sequences. Ultrasound may be particularly useful for evaluation of small joints of the hand. Nuclear medicine and CT play a limited role in imaging of non-osteochondral tissues in OA.

Practical approach to hip pain

Hip pain is a common complaint among patients presenting to outpatient clinics. Stratifying patients based on age, acuity, and location of pain (extra-articular vs intra-articular) can help to aid in appropriate imaging and timely referral to an orthopedic surgeon. A thorough history and an organized physical examination combined with radiographs are usually sufficient to diagnose most hip complaints. If the diagnosis remains uncertain, magnetic resonance imaging, usually with intra-articular gadolinium, is the imaging modality of choice in diagnosing both intra-articular and extra-articular pathologies.

Limited therapeutic benefits of intra-articular cortisone injection for patients with femoro-acetabular impingement and labral tear

PURPOSE

Intra-articular (IA) hip cortisone injection is commonly performed as a therapeutic modality in patients with femoral acetabular impingement (FAI). To our knowledge, there is no published data evaluating the clinical benefit of these injections. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of therapeutic IA cortisone injection in these patients.

METHODS

At our institution, patients with FAI and labral tear prospectively recorded their numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores pre-injection, during post-injection anaesthetic phase, and at 14 days post-injection. From this cohort, all patients treated with guided IA cortisone injection, no radiographic evidence of arthritis (Tönnis grade 0 or 1) and pain relief during the anaesthetic phase of the IA injection were included. An absolute change of two points on the NRS score was considered the minimal amount of clinically significant pain relief. Pain scores were compared between the different types of steroid injected.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients (35 females, 19 males) with a mean age of 32 ± 12 years were included. Average median pre-injection NRS score was 7.0 (range 2.5-10.0), post-injection anaesthetic phase was 1.0 (range 0.0-5.0), and 14 day post-injection was 5.0 (range 0.0-10.0). As a group, NRS scores significantly diminished from post-injection anaesthetic phase to 14 days post-injection (p < 0.001). At 14 days post-injection, only 20 patients (37 %) and at 6 weeks, only 3 patients (6 %) reported a clinically significant decrease in pain. Average duration of pain relief was 9.8 days. There was no difference in pain reduction between steroid preparations.

CONCLUSION

In patients with symptomatic FAI and labral tear, intra-articular cortisone injection has limited clinical benefit as a therapeutic modality. However, anaesthetic-only IA injections for patients who may be candidates for hip arthroscopy can be a useful diagnostic tool.

Ultrasound-guided Intraarticular Hip Injection for Osteoarthritis Pain in the Emergency Department

Ultrasound-guided intraarticular hip corticosteroid injections may be useful for emergency care providers treating patients with painful exacerbations of osteoarthritis of the hip. Corticosteroid injection is widely recommended as a first-line treatment for painful osteoarthritis of the hip. Bedside ultrasound is readily available in most emergency departments; however, using ultrasound to guide therapeutic hip injections has not yet been described in emergency practice. Herein, we present the first description of a successful emergency physician-performed ultrasound-guided hip injection of local anesthetic and corticosteroid for pain control in a patient with an acute exacerbation of osteoarthritis.

Efficacy of Intra-articular Steroid Injection in Patients with Femoroacetabular Impingement

Femoroacetabular Impingement (FAI) arises from morphological abnormalities between the proximal femur and acetabulum. Impingement caused by these morphologic abnormalities induces early degenerative changes in the hip joint. Furthermore, FAI patients complain of severe pain and limited range of motion in the hip, but a guideline for treatment of FAI has not yet been established. Medication, supportive physical treatment and surgical procedures have been used in the treatment of the FAI patients; however, the efficacies of these treatments have been limited. Here, we report the diagnosis and treatment for 3 cases of FAI patients. Intra-articular (IA) steroid injection of the hip joint was performed in all three patients. After IA injection, pain was reduced and function had improved for up to three months.

The role of synovitis in osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis worldwide yet there is still a lack of effective treatments for this condition. Increasingly, attention has turned to the role of the synovium in OA as it is now recognized, in part from the use of modern imaging techniques, that synovitis is both common and associated with pain. This offers a target for treatment, for both symptom and potential structure modification. In this review we discuss the evidence for histological and imaging-detected synovitis and the current role of antisynovial therapies in OA.

Image-guided versus blind glucocorticoid injection for shoulder pain

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, glucocorticoid injection for the treatment of shoulder pain has been performed guided by anatomical landmarks alone. With the advent of readily available imaging tools such as ultrasound, image-guided injections have increasingly become accepted into routine care. While there is some evidence that the use of imaging improves accuracy, it is unclear from current evidence whether or not it improves patient-relevant outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess whether image-guided glucocorticoid injections improve patient-relevant outcomes compared to landmark-guided or systemic intramuscular injections in patients with shoulder pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, via The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (Ovid), and EMBASE (Ovid) to June 2011. We also searched the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx) to identify ongoing trials and screened reference lists of retrieved review articles and trials to identify potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials that compared image-guided glucocorticoid injection to landmark-guided or systemic intramuscular injection. Outcomes of interest included pain, function, range of motion, proportion of participants with overall improvement and adverse events. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted the data and performed a risk of bias assessment. Disagreement about inclusion or exclusion of individual studies and risk of bias was resolved by a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies (290 participants) were included in the review. The image-guided groups in all trials used ultrasound to guide injection. Four studies included participants with rotator cuff disease; in three the comparator was local landmarks to direct injection into the subacromial bursa and in the fourth the comparator was systemic intramuscular injection into the upper gluteal muscles in the buttock region. One study included participants with adhesive capsulitis and injection was directed into the glenohumeral joint by either ultrasound or anatomical landmark guidance.No significant differences between groups were observed with respect to reduction in pain at one to two weeks (two trials, 146 participants, standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.44, 95% CI -4.14 to 1.26), or function at one to two weeks (two trials, 146 participants, SMD 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.29 to 3.20; back-translated to mean difference (MD) 4 points, 95% CI -5 to 13, on a 0 to 100 point scale, higher score means better function) or six weeks (three trials, 207 participants, SMD 0.63, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.33; back-translated to MD -3 points, 95% CI -11 to 5, on a 0 to 100 point scale) and the sensitivity analyses did not alter these results. While there was a significant difference between groups with respect to reduction in pain at six weeks favouring image guidance (three trials, 207 participants, SMD -0.80, 95% CI -1.46 to -0.14), there was considerable statistical heterogeneity and after removing trials with inadequate allocation concealment and inadequate blinding in a sensitivity analysis, the difference was no longer significant (one trial, 106 participants, MD -0.60 points, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.24 points on a 9-point scale).No statistical difference in adverse events between groups was identified (10/104 image-guided group versus 16/103 comparator; risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.85). Minor adverse events reported included transient post-injection pain, facial redness and warmth.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based upon moderate evidence from five trials, our review was unable to establish any advantage in terms of pain, function, shoulder range of motion or safety, of ultrasound-guided glucocorticoid injection for shoulder disorders over either landmark-guided or intramuscular injection. The lack of any added benefit of ultrasound guided subacromial bursal injection over glucocorticoid injection administered into the upper gluteal muscles of the buttock suggests that the benefits of glucocorticoid may arise through systemic rather than local effects. Therefore, although ultrasound guidance may improve the accuracy of injection to the putative site of pathology in the shoulder, it is not clear that this improves its efficacy to justify the significant added cost.

Diagnosis of osteoarthritis: imaging

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic, debilitating joint disease characterized by degenerative changes to the bones, cartilage, menisci, ligaments, and synovial tissue. Imaging modalities such as radiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and ultrasound (US) permit visualization of these structures and can evaluate disease onset and progression. Radiography is primarily useful for the assessment of bony structures, while OCT is used for evaluation of articular cartilage and US for ligaments and the synovium. MRI permits visualization of all intraarticular structures and pathologies, though US or OCT may be preferential in some circumstances. As OA is a disease of the whole joint, a combination of imaging techniques may be necessary in order to gain the most comprehensive picture of the disease state. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Osteoarthritis".

[Ultrasound-guided joint injections in patients with rheumatic diseases]

Joint and soft tissue injections are routinely performed in daily rheumatology practice to establish the diagnosis or as part of the treatment in patients suffering from rheumatic diseases. Consequently, joint injections have been included in the rheumatology further training curriculum. Despite numerous studies demonstrating a poor accuracy and outcome of joint injections guided only by clinical examination, most of the injection procedures are still performed in a "blind" fashion based on clinical judgment. Ultrasound has evolved as an established imaging method in rheumatology within the past decade and is considered the preferred imaging modality for joint interventions due to its availability and lack of radiation exposure. In this article the indications and important aspects of the practical management of ultrasound-guided injections performed in daily rheumatology practice are summarized.

Non-surgical treatment of osteoarthritis-related pain in the elderly

Osteoarthritis (OA), the third most common diagnosis in the elderly [1], causes significant pain leading to disability and decreased quality of life in subjects 65 years and older [2]. Traditionally, clinicians have relied heavily on the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat the pain of OA, as numerous studies have proven these agents to be effective. The cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic toxicities of NSAIDs have limited their use, particularly in the elderly. Acetaminophen has been recommended as initial therapy due to relative safety. Several other topical, oral and intra-articular agents are available today, with use limited by efficacy and side effect profiles. Many non-pharmacologic approaches are available but underused, and may be attractive choices to avoid poly-pharmacy in older patients. We will attempt to highlight the evidence behind available non-surgical therapies for OA while paying specific attention to issues in geriatric patients.