Clinical Update: MR Imaging of the Hip

Effect of different electric stimulation modalities on pain and functionality of patients with pelvic pain: Systematic review with META-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic pain is located in the anterior abdominal wall, below the umbilical scar. Its treatment includes pharmacological therapy, which can cause adverse effects and is not always sufficient to control symptoms. Thus, the use of adjunct therapies such as electric stimulation has been suggested. Therefore, this review intends to appraise the literature on the effectiveness of electrostimulation in the treatment of pelvic pain.

METHODS

The search for studies was conducted until April 2024 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, SciELO, PEDro, CINAHL, BVS, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases using a combination of Mesh terms "Electric Stimulation" and "Pelvic Pain." Risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis were performed with The Cochrane Collaboration tool (RevMan 5.4). Quality of the evidence was assessed with GRADE tool.

RESULTS

From the 3247 studies found, 19 were included. In the qualitative analysis, seven studies showed TENS, electroacupuncture, PTNS, and tDCS reduced pain intensity, one study on PTNS showed increased quality of life, and one on tDCS showed improved functional performance. However, in the meta-analysis, only TENS showed efficacy for the reduction of acute pelvic pain and primary dysmenorrhea.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that there is moderate-quality evidence for TENS to reduce pain intensity in primary dysmenorrhea and low-quality evidence for the same outcome in acute pelvic pain. Randomized controlled clinical trials with larger sample size and with better methodological quality are needed to establish the effectiveness of other forms of electrical stimulation in pelvic pain.

Hip and Groin Pain in the Professional Athlete

Hip and groin pain is a common condition in professional athletes and may result from an acute injury or from chronic, repetitive trauma. It is responsible for significant morbidity, which leads to time away from training and competition, and may result in a career-ending injury. The anatomic and biomechanical causes for hip and groin injuries are among the most complex and controversial in the musculoskeletal system. This makes clinical differentiation and subsequent management difficult because of the considerable overlap of symptoms and signs. This review article will evaluate several pathologic conditions of the hip and groin in athletes, divided into acute (secondary to single event) and chronic (secondary to altered biomechanical load or repetitive microtrauma) injuries, with an emphasis on imaging in the diagnosis of these injuries. Appropriate use of imaging along with clinical findings can allow accurate diagnosis and subsequent appropriate management of these patients to ultimately allow return to athletic activity.

Response to diagnostic injection in patients with femoroacetabular impingement, labral tears, chondral lesions, and extra-articular pathology

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the percent relief from injection among subjects with arthroscopic findings of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral and chondral pathologies while controlling for coexisting extra-articular pathology.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 72 consecutive subjects (54 female and 18 male subjects), aged 29.9 ± 10.4 years (range, 16 to 55 years), who underwent hip arthroscopy. Three separate analyses of covariance compared the percent relief after injection between groups based on surgically confirmed type of impingement (none, cam, pincer, or combined), labral pathology (none, mild, or torn), and chondral pathology (none, mild acetabular abnormality, acetabular delamination, or femoral lesion) while controlling for the presence of extra-articular pathology (iliotibial band, iliopsoas tendinopathy, or bursitis).

RESULTS

The results of analysis 1 (F₃,₆₇ = 1.96, P = .128, partial η² = .081) and analysis 2 (F₂,₆₈ = 0.008, P = .992, partial η² = .000) indicated no significant main effect for FAI and labral pathology, respectively, on percent relief from injection. The results for analysis 3 indicated a significant main effect for chondral pathology of the hip on the percent relief from injection (F₃,₆₇ = 3.03, P < .05, partial η² = .128). Post hoc analysis showed that those with mild chondral pathology of the acetabulum and those with acetabular delamination had significantly greater percent relief compared with those without chondral pathology. Extra-articular pathology did not influence the percent relief from injection in any of the analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects with chondral damage had greater relief from injection than those without, regardless of severity. The presence and severity of FAI and labral pathology did not influence the percent relief from injection. Concurrent extra-articular pathology did not alter the interpretation of the percent relief from injection. Therefore the interpretation and diagnostic value of an anesthetic injection in those with primary intra-articular pathology does not need to be altered by the presence of coexisting extra-articular hip pathology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.