Use of Intra-Articular Corticosteroids in Orthopaedics

Intraarticular Injections in the Foot and Ankle: Medication Selection Patterns and Perceived Risk Of Chondrotoxicity

Background

Intraarticular corticosteroid injections (ICIs) are widely used to treat foot and ankle conditions. Although laboratory studies indicate certain corticosteroids and local anesthetics used in ICIs are associated with chondrotoxic effects, and selected agents such as ropivacaine and triamcinolone may have less of these features, clinical evidence is lacking. We aimed to identify the patterns of drug selection, perceptions of injectate chondrotoxicity, and rationale for medication choice among surgeons in the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS).

Methods

An e-survey including demographics, practice patterns, and rationale was disseminated to 2011 AOFAS members. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for demographic data, anesthetic and steroid choice, rationale for injectate choice, and perception of chondrotoxicity. Bivariate analysis was used to identify practice patterns significantly associated with perceptions of injectate risk and rationale.

Results

In total, 387 surveys were completed. Lidocaine and triamcinolone were the most common anesthetic and corticosteroid used (51.2% and 39.3%, respectively). Less than half of respondents felt corticosteroids or local anesthetics bear risk of chondrotoxicity. Respondents agreeing that corticosteroids are chondrotoxic were more likely to use triamcinolone (P = .037). Respondents agreeing local anesthetics risk chondrotoxicity were less likely to use lidocaine (P = .023). Respondents choosing a local anesthetic based on literature were more likely to use ropivacaine (P < .001).

Conclusion

Corticosteroid and local anesthetic use in ICIs varied greatly. Rationale for ICI formulation was also variable, as the clinical implications are largely unknown. Those who recognized potential chondrotoxicity and who chose based on literature were more likely to choose ropivacaine and triamcinolone, as reflected in the basic science literature. Further clinical studies are needed to establish guidelines that shape foot and ankle ICI practices based on scientific evidence and reduce the variation identified by this study.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, cross-sectional survey study.

Ultrasound-responsive hyaluronic acid hydrogel of hydrocortisone to treat osteoarthritis

One of the practical ways to manage the disease flares of arthritis is using an intra-articular depot formulation of glucocorticoids. Hydrogels, as controllable drug delivery systems, are hydrophilic polymers with distinctive properties, such as remarkable water capacity and biocompatibility. This study aimed to design an injectable thermo-ultrasound-triggered drug carrier based on Pluronic® F-127, hyaluronic acid, and gelatin. The in situ hydrogel loaded by hydrocortison was developed and D-optimal design was used to formulate the process. The optimized hydrogel was combined with four different surfactants to better regulate the release rate. In situ gels composed of the hydrocortisone-loaded hydrogel and hydrocortisone-loaded mixed-micelle hydrogel were characterized. The hydrocortisone-loaded hydrogel and selected hydrocortisone-loaded mixed-micelle hydrogel showed a spherical shape and were nano-sized with a unique thermo-responsive nature able to prolong drug release. The ultrasound-triggered release study showed that drug release was time-dependent. By inducing osteoarthritis in a rat model, behavioral tests and histopathological analyses were carried out on the hydrocortisone-loaded hydrogel and a particular hydrocortisone-loaded mixed-micelle hydrogel. In vivo results showed that the selected hydrocortisone-loaded mixed-micelle hydrogel improved the status of the disease. Results highlighted the potential of ultrasound-responsive in situ-forming hydrogels as hopeful formulas for efficient treatment of arthritis.

How do pre-operative intra-articular injections impact periprosthetic joint infection risk following primary total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although intra-articular injections (IAIs) serve as the first-line non-surgical management for severe osteoarthritis (OA), recent analyses have suggested they are associated with an increased infection risk following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Therefore, our systematic review and meta-analysis explored the relationship between IAIs and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following THA reported in the current literature.

METHODS

Five online databases were queried for analyses published from January 1st, 2000-May 1st, 2021 reporting on PJI rates between patients undergoing primary THA who did and did not preoperatively receive an IAI. The overall pooled effect of injection status on PJI incidence was determined using Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) models. This was similarly conducted for segregated preoperative intervals: 0-3 months, > 3-6 months, > 6 + months.

RESULTS

A total of 11 articles were included in our analysis reporting on 278,782 THAs (IAI: n = 41,138; no IAI: n = 237,644). Patients receiving pre-operative injections had a significantly higher risk of PJI (OR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.07-1.62; p = 0.009). However, this finding was not robust. IAI receipt within 3-months of THA was associated with significantly higher PJI rates (OR: 1.68, 95% CI 1.48-1.90; p < 0.001). However, no significant difference was demonstrated in the > 3-6 month (OR: 1.19, 95% CI 0.94-1.52; p = 0.16) and > 6 + month sub-analyses (OR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.96-1.50; p = 0.11). The results of all sub-analyses remained were robust.

DISCUSSION

Our findings suggest that patients requiring THA should wait at least 3-months following IAI to reduce post-operative infection risk. This information can help inform patients considering OA management options, as well as adult reconstruction surgeons during preoperative optimization.

Intra-articular injection receipt within 3 months prior to primary total knee arthroplasty is associated with increased periprosthetic joint infection risk

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis analyzed the influence of pre-operative intra-articular injections (IAI) on periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Studies published between January 1st, 2000 and May 1st, 2021 evaluating PJI rates among TKA patients with and without IAI were identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EBSCO Host, and Google Scholar. The pooled effect of IAI on PJI risk was calculated utilizing Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) models. Sub-analysis comparisons were conducted based on the interval from IAI to TKA: 0-3 months; > 3-6 months; > 6-12 months. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool were utilized to evaluate the quality of each included study.

RESULTS

The present analysis included 12 studies reporting on 349,605 TKAs (IAI: n = 115,122; No IAI: n = 234,483). Patients receiving an IAI at any point prior to TKA (2850/115,122; 2.48%) had statistically significant increased risk of infection compared to patients not receiving IAIs (4479/234,483; 1.91%; OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08-1.20; p < 0.0001). However, this finding was not demonstrated across sensitivity analyses. Receiving injections within 3 months prior to TKA was associated with increased infection risk (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.14-1.31; p < 0.0001). There were no differences in infection rates when injections were given between > 3 and 6 months (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.47-1.43; p = 0.49) and > 6-12 months prior to TKA (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.89-1.78; p = 0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current literature, the findings of this analysis suggest that patients receiving IAI should wait at least 3 months before undergoing TKA to mitigate infection risk. Orthopaedic surgeons and patients can utilize this information when undergoing shared decision-making regarding osteoarthritis management options and timing.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Perioperative use of intra-articular steroids during the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

There are growing concerns with the widely used glucocorticoids during the Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic due to the associated immunosuppressive effects, which may increase the risk of COVID-19 infection and worsen COVID-19 patient outcome. Heavily affecting orthopaedics, the pandemic led to delay and cancellation of almost all surgical cases, and procedures including perioperative intra-articular corticosteroid injections (ICIs) saw similar decreases. However, the benefits of ICI treatments during the pandemic may outweigh these potential risks, and their continued use may be warranted.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted, and all relevant articles including original articles and reviews were identified and considered in full for inclusion, and analysed with expert opinion. Epidemiological statistics and medical guidelines were consulted from relevant authorities.

RESULTS

ICIs allow a targeted approach on the affected joint and are effective in reducing pain while improving functional outcome and patient quality-of-life. ICIs delay the requirement for surgery, accommodating for the increased healthcare burden during the pandemic, while reducing postoperative hospital stay, bringing significant financial benefits. However, ICIs can exert systemic effects and suppress the immune system. ICIs may increase the risk of COVID-19 infection and reduce the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations, leading to important public health implications.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative ICI treatments may bring significant, multifaceted benefits during the pandemic. However, ICIs increase the risk of infection, and perioperative COVID-19 is associated with mortality. The use of ICIs during the COVID-19 pandemic should therefore be considered carefully on an individual patient basis, weighing the associated risks and benefits.

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Shows Superiority Over Injections for Pain Relief and Grip Strength Recovery in Lateral Epicondylitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To examine the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and injection therapies by synthesizing direct and indirect evidence for all pairs of competing therapies for lateral epicondylitis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched for all appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs), assessing the effect of ESWT or injection therapies. The primary outcome was short-term (≤3 months) and medium-term (>3 months but ≤12 months) pain, while the secondary outcomes were grip strength and patient-reported outcome measures. All outcomes were assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities to determine a hierarchy of treatments. Sensitivity analysis was performed to eliminate potential therapeutic effects of normal saline (NS) and exclude trials that included patients with acute lateral epicondylitis (LE).

RESULTS

40 RCTs were included to evaluate ESWT and five different injection therapies, including corticosteroids (CSs), autologous whole blood, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A), and dextrose prolotherapy (DPT). DPT (-.78 [-1.34 to -.21]), ESWT (.57 [-.89 to -.25]), PRP (-.48 [-.85 to -.11]), and BoNT-A (-.43 [-.84 to -.02]) outperformed placebo for short-term pain relief; ESWT (-.44 [-.85 to -.04]) outperformed placebo for medium-term pain relief. DPT was ranked as the most optimal short-term and medium-term pain reliever (SUCRA, 87.3% and 98.6%, respectively). ESWT was ranked as the most optimal short-term and medium-term grip strength recovery (SUCRA; 79.4% and 86.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

DPT and ESWT were the best two treatment options for pain control and ESWT was the best treatment option for grip strength recovery. CSs were not recommended for the treatment of LE. More evidence is required to confirm the superiority in pain control of DPT among all these treatment options on LE.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, meta-analysis of Level I randomized controlled trials.

Risk of revision based on timing of corticosteroid injection prior to shoulder arthroplasty

AIMS

Corticosteroid injections are often used to manage glenohumeral arthritis in patients who may be candidates for future total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). In the conservative management of these patients, corticosteroid injections are often provided for symptomatic relief. The purpose of this study was to determine if the timing of corticosteroid injections prior to TSA or rTSA is associated with changes in rates of revision and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following these procedures.

METHODS

Data were collected from a national insurance database from January 2006 to December 2017. Patients who underwent shoulder corticosteroid injection within one year prior to ipsilateral TSA or rTSA were identified and stratified into the following cohorts: < three months, three to six months, six to nine months, and nine to 12 months from time of corticosteroid injection to TSA or rTSA. A control cohort with no corticosteroid injection within one year prior to TSA or rTSA was used for comparison. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the association between specific time intervals and outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 4,252 patients were included in this study. Among those, 1,632 patients (38.4%) received corticosteroid injection(s) within one year prior to TSA or rTSA and 2,620 patients (61.6%) did not. On multivariate analysis, patients who received corticosteroid injection < three months prior to TSA or rTSA were at significantly increased risk for revision (odds ratio (OR) 2.61 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77 to 3.28); p < 0.001) when compared with the control cohort. However, there was no significant increase in revision risk for all other timing interval cohorts. Notably, Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 was a significant independent risk factor for all-cause revision (OR 4.00 (95% CI 1.40 to 8.92); p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

There is a time-dependent relationship between the preoperative timing of corticosteroid injection and the incidence of all-cause revision surgery following TSA or rTSA. This analysis suggests that an interval of at least three months should be maintained between corticosteroid injection and TSA or rTSA to minimize risks of subsequent revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):620-626.

Corticosteroid Injections After Rotator Cuff Repair Improve Function, Reduce Pain, and Are Safe: A Systematic Review

Purpose

To review the literature on postoperative corticosteroid injections (CSIs) following primary rotator cuff repair (RCR) to evaluate efficacy and adverse effects.

Methods

A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were performed to identify all studies published within the last 15 years, which reported on outcomes of postoperative CSIs following RCR. Studies including patients who received only preoperative CSIs and revision RCRs were excluded. Included studies were evaluated for study methodology, patient demographics, outcome measures, physical examination parameters, results of imaging studies, and adverse effects or clinical complications.

Results

Seven studies comprising 5,528 patients satisfied inclusion criteria. Among included patients, 54.8% were female and mean age range from 52.3 ± 13.0 to 62.7 ± 6.6 years. Only 1 included investigation was a Level I study. Overall, 4 of 5 studies reported significant improvements in pain and outcome scores (Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score) compared with controls. Across all studies, the majority of these effects were statistically significant at 3 months postoperatively but not beyond this time point. Five of the 6 included investigations reported no increased rate of retears after postoperative CSIs. One study did find an increase in retear in patients receiving postoperative CSIs but was unable to determine whether these retears were present before the patient received the CSI. Another investigation reported an increased rate of infection only if the CSI was administered in the first postoperative month.

Conclusions

Postoperative CSIs may improve pain and function for up to 3 months following primary RCR but not at later follow-up time points. CSIs should be administered only after the first postoperative month to minimize the potential risk for adverse events.

Level of Evidence

Systematic review of level I-IV studies.

Dexamethasone Does not Compensate for Local Anesthetic Cytotoxic Effects on Tenocytes: Morphine or Morphine Plus Dexamethasone May Be a Safe Alternative

Purpose

The purposes of this in vitro study were to investigate whether the addition of dexamethasone can compensate for any cytotoxic effects of the amide-type local anesthetics (LA) bupivacaine and ropivacaine and whether morphine and morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) may be a safe alternative for peritendinous application.

Methods

Biopsies of human biceps tendons (n = 6) were dissected and cultivated. Cells were characterized by the expression for tenocyte markers, collagen I, biglycan, tenascin C, scleraxis, and RUNX via reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction and immunohistochemistry. Tenocytes were incubated with bupivacaine, ropivacaine, morphine, M6G, or a saline control with and without addition of dexamethasone for 15, 60, or 240 min. Cell viability was determined by quantifying the presence of adenosine-triphosphate.

Results

Significant time-dependent cytotoxic effects were observed for LA after all exposure times. After 15, 60, and 240 minutes, cell viability decreased to 81.1%, 49.4% and 0% (P < .001) for bupivacaine and to 81.4%, 69.6%, and 9.3% (P < .001) for ropivacaine compared to saline control. Dexamethasone did not compensate for these cytotoxic effects. Cell viability was not affected after 15, 60-min exposures to morphine and M6G but decreased significantly (P < .001) after 240 minutes compared to saline control. However, in combination with dexamethasone, tenocyte viability was significantly increased at all times for morphine (P < .01) and at 15 and 60 minutes for M6G (P < .01).

Conclusions

The results showed that amide-type LA have a time-dependent cytotoxic effect on human tenocytes in vitro, which could not be compensated for by dexamethasone, whereas morphine and M6G had no cytotoxic effects on tenocytes after 15 and 60 minutes. The addition of dexamethasone to morphine and M6G had a positive effect on viability, which increased significantly compared to the opioids.

Clinical Relevance

It is known that amide-type local anesthetics used for local joint analgesia have chondrotoxic side-effects. The combined application of morphine and dexamethasone may be a safe alternative.

Common Practices in Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Injection for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Survey of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Membership

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis nonoperative management options remain limited. Our aim is to define the current American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) members' practices and perceptions in terms of the frequency, formulation, use of concomitant aspiration, maximum lifetime number of injections, efficacy, interval between injection and surgery and complication rates.

METHODS

A 22-question survey based on Likert scale response anchors was approved and distributed by the AAHKS Research Committee to its membership by email during the Spring 2019 meeting. Data were managed with REDCap software.

RESULTS

Membership response totaled 537 of 2365 (22.7%) members. Highlights include every respondent using intra-articular corticosteroid injections (ICIs) in their practice, and most use a three-month minimum interval, although the preferred interval is longer. Near consensus was found waiting three months before surgery. There was a great variability in the number of injections allowed, and injections before surgery were very common. Nearly all responders use a local anesthetic mixture with the cortisone injection, but there was great variation in corticosteroid type: methylprednisolone (42%), triamcinolone (41%), betamethasone (13.3%), and dexamethasone (3.7%).

CONCLUSION

The results of our survey indicate the majority of the AAHKS members who completed the survey use ICIs routinely for treatment of knee osteoarthritis. There was near consensus in ICIs, which is effective with decreasing efficacy over serial injections, and an absolute minimum interval between injections was believed by most to be three months with no clearly defined lifetime limit and strong consensus for a three-month preoperative interval. The formulation of steroid, local anesthetic, and skin preparation technique varied greatly.

Hyaluronan Injections Show No Histologic Evidence of Adverse Tissue Effects

Background:

The safety of hyaluronan intra-articular injections is mostly based on animal studies and clinical evidence rather than histologic studies from human administration.

Objective:

This study analyzed the histologic effects of viscosupplementation with sodium hyaluronate on the synovium and articular cartilage of human knee specimen status post total knee arthroplasty within 3 years of viscosupplementation.

Methods:

Twenty-four specimens from total knee arthroplasties from April 2012 to August 2016 at NYU Winthrop Hospital were selected for microscopic analysis. All cases had a diagnosis of end-stage osteoarthritis at the time of surgery. Thirteen of the cases had 3 viscosupplementation injections of the knee with Euflexxa, a hyaluronate-based viscosupplementation agent, within 3 years preceding a total knee replacement. The remaining 11 did not receive viscosupplementation and were incorporated as controls. Upon histologic review, synovium was categorized by degree of hyperplasia and inflammation and the presence or absence of foreign material and giant cell reactions. Residual articular cartilage was categorized by staining intensity, and the presence or absence of crystals, foreign material, and giant cell reactions.

Results:

No significant difference was found between these groups for degree of synovial hyperplasia (P = .33) or for cartilage staining density (P = .42). None of the samples displayed evidence of foreign material, crystals, or giant cell reactions.

Conclusion:

In this cohort of patients, we demonstrated that Euflexxa was administered without any discernible microscopic adverse tissue effects.