Intra-articular therapy in hip osteoarthritis

Preoperative meloxicam versus postoperative meloxicam for pain control, patients' satisfaction and function recovery in hip osteoarthritis patients who receive total hip arthroplasty: a randomized, controlled study

This study aimed to compare the analgesic effect, patients’ satisfaction, tolerance and hip-joint function recovery by preoperative meloxicam versus postoperative meloxicam in treating hip osteoarthritis (OA) patients receiving total hip arthroplasty (THA). 132 hip OA patients who underwent THA surgery were allocated into postoperative analgesia (POST) and preoperative analgesia (PRE) groups at a 1:1 ratio. In the PRE group, patients took meloxicam 15 mg at 24 h pre-operation, 7.5 mg at 4 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h post-operation; in the POST group, patients received meloxicam 15 mg at 4 h post-operation, then 7.5 mg at 24 h, 48 h and 72 h post-operation. Furthermore, postoperative pain, consumption of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), overall satisfaction and adverse events were evaluated within 96 h post-operation; meanwhile, Harris hip score was assessed within 6 months post-operation. Pain VAS at rest at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, and pain VAS at passive movement at 6 h, 12 h were decreased in PRE group compared to POST group. In addition, additional consumption of PCA and the total consumption of PCA were both reduced in PRE group compared to POST group. Additionally, overall satisfaction in PRE group was higher at 24 h, 48 h and 72 h compared to POST group. While Harris hip score was of no difference between POST group and PRE group at M3 or M6. Besides, no difference in adverse events incidence was found between the two groups. In conclusion, preoperative meloxicam achieves better efficacy and similar tolerance compared to postoperative meloxicam in hip OA patients post THA.

Scientific Papers and Patents on Substances with Unproven Effects. Part 2

Several examples are discussed in this review, where substances without proven effects were proposed for practical use within the scope of evidence-based medicines. The following is discussed here: generalizations of the hormesis concept and its use in support of homeopathy; phytoestrogens and soy products potentially having feminizing effects; glycosaminoglycans for the treatment of osteoarthritis and possibilities of their replacement by diet modifications; flavonoids recommended for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency and varicose veins; acetylcysteine as a mucolytic agent and its questionable efficiency especially by an oral intake; stem cells and cell therapies. In conclusion, placebo therapies can be beneficial and ethically justifiable but it is not a sufficient reason to publish biased information. Importantly, placebo must be devoid of adverse effects, otherwise, it is named pseudo-placebo. Therapeutic methods with unproven effects should be tested in high-quality research shielded from the funding bias. Some issues discussed in this review are not entirely clear, and the arguments provided here can initiate a constructive discussion.

Corticosteroids and Hyaluronic Acid Injections

Osteoarthritis is a common condition that affects many individuals resulting in pain, reduced mobility, and decreased function. Corticosteroids have been a mainstay of osteoarthritis treatment. Studies have shown that they provide short-term pain improvement and can be used for osteoarthritis flares. Hyaluronic acid injections have extensively been studied in knee osteoarthritis but to a lesser degree in other joints. Despite some debate between societies, a large number of recent studies have shown hyaluronic acid to be a viable treatment option showing longer-term improvement in both pain and function.