Importance of placement of intra-articular steroid injections

Does sonographic needle guidance affect the clinical outcome of intraarticular injections?

OBJECTIVE

This randomized controlled study addressed whether sonographic needle guidance affected clinical outcomes of intraarticular (IA) joint injections.

METHODS

In total, 148 painful joints were randomized to IA triamcinolone acetonide injection by conventional palpation-guided anatomic injection or sonographic image-guided injection enhanced with a one-handed control syringe (the reciprocating device). A one-needle, 2-syringe technique was used, where the first syringe was used to introduce the needle, aspirate any effusion, and anesthetize and dilate the IA space with lidocaine. After IA placement and synovial space dilation were confirmed, a syringe exchange was performed, and corticosteroid was injected with the second syringe through the indwelling IA needle. Baseline pain, procedural pain, pain at outcome (2 weeks), and changes in pain scores were measured with a 0-10 cm visual analog pain scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Relative to conventional palpation-guided methods, sonographic guidance resulted in 43.0% reduction in procedural pain (p < 0.001), 58.5% reduction in absolute pain scores at the 2 week outcome (p < 0.001), 75% reduction in significant pain (VAS pain score > or = 5 cm; p < 0.001), 25.6% increase in the responder rate (reduction in VAS score > or = 50% from baseline; p < 0.01), and 62.0% reduction in the nonresponder rate (reduction in VAS score < 50% from baseline; p < 0.01). Sonography also increased detection of effusion by 200% and volume of aspirated fluid by 337%.

CONCLUSION

Sonographic needle guidance significantly improves the performance and outcomes of outpatient IA injections in a clinically significant manner.

Joint aspiration and injection and synovial fluid analysis

Joint aspiration/injection and synovial fluid (SF) analysis are both invaluable procedures for the diagnosis and treatment of joint disease. This chapter addresses: (1) the indications, the technical principles and the expected benefits and risks of aspiration and injection of intra-articular corticosteroid; and (2) practical aspects relating to SF analysis, especially in relation to crystal identification. Intra-articular injection of long-acting insoluble corticosteroids is a well-established procedure that produces rapid pain relief and resolution of inflammation in most injected joints. The knee is the most common site to require aspiration, although any non-axial joint is accessible for obtaining SF. The technique requires a knowledge of basic anatomy and should not be unduly painful for the patient. Provided sterile equipment and a sensible, aseptic approach are used, it is very safe. Analysis of aspirated SF is helpful in the differential diagnosis of arthritis and is the definitive method for diagnosis of septic arthritis and crystal arthritis. The gross appearance of SF can provide useful diagnostic information in terms of the degree of joint inflammation and presence of haemarthrosis. Microbiological studies of SF are the key to the confirmation of infectious conditions. Increasing joint inflammation is associated with increased SF volume, reduced viscosity, increasing turbidity and cell count, and increasing ratio of polymorphonuclear: mononuclear cells, but such changes are non-specific and must be interpreted in the clinical setting. However, detection of SF monosodium urate and calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate crystals, even from un-inflamed joints during intercritical periods, allow a precise diagnosis of gout and of calcium pyrophosphate crystal-related arthritis.

US guided injections in arthritis

US guided procedures for diagnosis or treatment of different forms of arthritis are becoming more and more important. This review describes general considerations for fluid aspiration, articular or periarticular injections and biopsies by US guidance according to the recent literature. Guidelines regarding instrumentation, different techniques, pre- and postprocedural care as well as complications are outlined and in the second part a more detailed overview of different interventions in joints, tendons and other periarticular regions (nerves, bursae, etc.) is included. Furthermore, some newer, more sophisticated techniques are briefly discussed.

Intra-articular corticosteroids in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Safety, efficacy, and features affecting outcome. A comprehensive review of the literature

Intra-articular corticosteroid injection (IACI) has been used in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis in adults for over fifty years. Over the last two decades, IACI has become an important tool in the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), particularly in the oligoarthritis subset of JIA. Many factors may affect the efficacy of this treatment modality, although the majority of evidence on this topic is anecdotal, nonconvincing, or conflicting. The review examines the rationale, efficacy, safety, and application of the use of IACI in the treatment of JIA, focusing on factors that affect the outcome following IACI.

Intra-articular botulinum toxin A for refractory shoulder pain: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

We compared the short-term efficacy and safety of intra-articular (IA) botulinum toxin A (BoNT/A) to IA-placebo in patients with chronic, refractory shoulder joint pain. Forty-three shoulder joints in patients with moderate-to-severe shoulder arthritis pain were randomized to receive (1) 100 units IA-BoNT/A + lidocaine or (2) IA-saline + lidocaine. The following outcomes were compared using analysis of covariance: (1) primary: change in pain severity on a visual analog scale at 1 month (VAS, 0 cm to 10 cm); (2) secondary: Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) disability subscale, quality of life on short-form (SF)-36 subscales, percent of patients who achieved at least a 30% decrease or a 2-point reduction in VAS pain (clinically meaningful pain relief), and safety. Both BoNT/A (n = 21) and placebo (n = 22) groups were comparable at baseline. At 1 month post-injection, the VAS pain reduction was significantly more in the BoNT/A group versus the placebo group (-2.4 vs -0.8; P-value = 0.014). When comparing BoNT/A with the placebo group at 1 month, it was observed that 5 SF-36 subscale scores improved significantly (P Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings

• Aged
• Botulinum Toxins, Type A/administration & dosage
• Botulinum Toxins, Type A/adverse effects
• Botulinum Toxins, Type A/therapeutic use
• Double-Blind Method
• Female
• Humans
• Injections, Intra-Articular
• Male
• Shoulder Pain/drug therapy
• Treatment Outcome

Collapse

Grants

• 1 KL2 RR024151-01 NCRR NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Jasvinder A Singh Rheumatology Section, Medicine Service at the VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA.
Maren L Mahowald
Siamak Noorbaloochi

Collapse

Diagnosis and management of adhesive capsulitis

Adhesive capsulitis is a musculoskeletal condition that has a disabling capability. This review discusses the diagnosis and both operative and nonoperative management of this shoulder condition that causes significant morbidity. Issues related to medications, rehabilitation, and post surgical considerations are discussed.

Ultrasound-guided interventional procedures of the wrist and hand

This pictorial review will outline the rationale, indications, techniques, controversies and possible complications of ultrasound-guided interventional procedures of the hand and wrist.

Accuracy of posterior subtalar joint injection without fluoroscopy

Injection into the posterior subtalar joint has not been validated for accuracy using radiographic end points. We asked whether needle placement into a normal posterior subtalar joint could be performed accurately and selectively by experienced surgeons without fluoroscopic guidance. Three fellowship-trained orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons each injected the posterior subtalar joint of 20 cadaveric specimens using an anterolateral approach. Fluoroscopic images were obtained by an independent investigator and blinded. A separate fellowship-trained foot and ankle surgeon interpreted the images. Of 60 injections, 58 were accurate and two were extraarticular based on interpretation by an independent foot and ankle surgeon. Extravasation into the ankle occurred in 14 samples and into the peroneal sheath in two samples. Experienced surgeons can place intraarticular injections into a radiographically normal posterior subtalar joint without fluoroscopy with a high degree of accuracy. However, extravasation into the ankle or peroneal tendon sheath occurred in an unpredictable fashion, suggesting selectivity of injection placement is relatively limited without the use of fluoroscopy. Fluoroscopy may not be necessary for injections used solely for therapeutic purposes. However, if the injection is intended for diagnostic purposes or to assist in surgical decision-making or if the joint is abnormal, we recommend fluoroscopy to ensure the subtalar joint is the only anatomic structure impacted by the injection.

Intra-articular use of hyaluronic acid in the treatment of osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is one of the leading causes of disability in the elderly. The changes in the lubricating properties of synovial fluid lead to significant pain and loss of function. More than ten years have passed from the first studies. Up till now many authors have supported intra-articular hyaluronan (HA) therapy as not only a symptom-modifying therapy but also a treatment which may significantly decrease the rate of deterioration of joint structure. In this review we report data relative to knee and hip treatment. The ongoing studies continue to further our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms that likely underlie the therapeutic benefits of this treatment but, despite recent progress, many unresolved issues require further study. Large scale double blind controlled studies must be carried out to confirm these promising data and produce meaningful guidelines.

Emerging intra-articular drug delivery systems for the temporomandibular joint

Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders are a heterogeneous group of diseases that cause progressive joint degeneration leading to chronic pain and reduced quality of life. Both effective pain reduction and restoration of TMJ function remain unmet challenges. Intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid are currently used to treat chronic pain, but these methods require multiple injections that increase the risk of iatrogenic joint damage and other complications. The small and emerging field of TMJ tissue engineering aims to reduce pain and disability through novel strategies that induce joint tissue regeneration. Development of methods for sustained, intra-articular release of growth factors and other pro-regenerative signals will be critical for the success of TMJ tissue engineering strategies. This review discusses methods of intra-articular drug delivery to the TMJ, as well as emerging injectable controlled release systems with potential to improve TMJ drug delivery, to encourage further research in the development of sustained release systems for both long-term pain management and to enhance tissue engineering strategies for TMJ regeneration.

A comparison of intra-articular hyaluronan injection accuracy rates between three approaches based on radiographic severity of knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the accuracy rates of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee between the modified Waddell approach (an anteromedial approach with manipulative ankle traction at 30 degrees of knee flexion), an anteromedial approach with the subjects seated (hereinafter the seated anteromedial approach) and a lateral patellar approach based on the Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) radiographic grade (II, III and IV).

DESIGNS

Fifty patients with knee OA received HA injections through the three approaches. The accuracy rates were confirmed with a single radiograph after injections of a mixture of radiographic contrast medium.

RESULTS

In the K-L grade IV cases (n=11), the accuracy rates through the modified Waddell approach (11 out of 11, 100%) were significantly higher than those through the seated anteromedial approach (six out of 11, 55%) and the lateral patellar approach (six out of 11, 55%) (P=0.035). No significant differences were detected in the accuracy rates of the participants classified as grade II (n=21) or III (n=18) cases between the modified Waddell approach (86% and 78%, respectively), the seated anteromedial approach (71% and 56%, respectively) and the lateral patellar approach (86% and 61%, respectively) (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although previous studies have been conducted on the accuracy of needle placement into the intra-articular space of the knee, no evaluations were performed with the results categorized by radiographic severity. This study highlighted the need for clinicians to change the approach employed for HA injections, according to the severity of knee OA.

Intra-articular corticosteroid injections in the foot and ankle: a prospective 1-year follow-up investigation

Most evidence for the efficacy of intra-articular corticosteroids is confined to the knee, with few studies considering the joints of the foot and ankle. The aim of this study was to identify the long-term efficacy of corticosteroid injection in foot and ankle joints. All patients undergoing intra-articular corticosteroid injections into foot and ankle joints over a 10-month period were recruited into the study. Patients were asked to complete a foot-related quality of life questionnaire, namely the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, immediately before intra-articular injection and at set points up to 1-year afterward. Eighteen patients, comprising 36 foot and ankle joints, were recruited into the study. There was a statistically significant score improvement following corticosteroid injection up to and including 6 months postinjection. No independent clinical factors were identified that could predict a better postinjection response. The magnitude of the response at 2 months was found to predict a sustained response at 9 months and 1 year. Intra-articular corticosteroids improved symptom scores in patients with foot and ankle arthritis. The duration of this response was varied and patient factors affecting the response remain unclear. Response to the injection at 2 months can be used to predict the duration of beneficial effects up to at least 1 year.

LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE

2.

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, Part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines

PURPOSE

To develop concise, patient-focussed, up to date, evidence-based, expert consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), which are adaptable and designed to assist physicians and allied health care professionals in general and specialist practise throughout the world.

METHODS

Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopaedics and evidence-based medicine), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. A systematic review of existing guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA published between 1945 and January 2006 was undertaken using the validated appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation (AGREE) instrument. A core set of management modalities was generated based on the agreement between guidelines. Evidence before 2002 was based on a systematic review conducted by European League Against Rheumatism and evidence after 2002 was updated using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Library and HTA reports. The quality of evidence was evaluated, and where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life years gained were estimated. Consensus recommendations were produced following a Delphi exercise and the strength of recommendation (SOR) for propositions relating to each modality was determined using a visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-three treatment guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA were identified from the literature search, including six opinion-based, five evidence-based and 12 based on both expert opinion and research evidence. Twenty out of 51 treatment modalities addressed by these guidelines were universally recommended. ES for pain relief varied from treatment to treatment. Overall there was no statistically significant difference between non-pharmacological therapies [0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16, 0.34] and pharmacological therapies (ES=0.39, 95% CI 0.31, 0.47). Following feedback from Osteoarthritis Research International members on the draft guidelines and six Delphi rounds consensus was reached on 25 carefully worded recommendations. Optimal management of patients with OA hip or knee requires a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological modalities of therapy. Recommendations cover the use of 12 non-pharmacological modalities: education and self-management, regular telephone contact, referral to a physical therapist, aerobic, muscle strengthening and water-based exercises, weight reduction, walking aids, knee braces, footwear and insoles, thermal modalities, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and acupuncture. Eight recommendations cover pharmacological modalities of treatment including acetaminophen, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) non-selective and selective oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs and capsaicin, intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and hyaluronates, glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulphate for symptom relief; glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and diacerein for possible structure-modifying effects and the use of opioid analgesics for the treatment of refractory pain. There are recommendations covering five surgical modalities: total joint replacements, unicompartmental knee replacement, osteotomy and joint preserving surgical procedures; joint lavage and arthroscopic debridement in knee OA, and joint fusion as a salvage procedure when joint replacement had failed. Strengths of recommendation and 95% CIs are provided.

CONCLUSION

Twenty-five carefully worded recommendations have been generated based on a critical appraisal of existing guidelines, a systematic review of research evidence and the consensus opinions of an international, multidisciplinary group of experts. The recommendations may be adapted for use in different countries or regions according to the availability of treatment modalities and SOR for each modality of therapy. These recommendations will be revised regularly following systematic review of new research evidence as this becomes available.

Injection therapies for soft-tissue lesions

Local injection therapies, used in the management of a variety of musculoskeletal pain syndromes, include the local infiltration of substances such as corticosteroid, anaesthetic, sclerosants and botulinum toxin, as well as dry needling alone and neural blockade. In this chapter, a number of injection therapies for soft-tissue-mediated pain are described. The reasoning for their use, potential mechanisms of action and unwanted effects are discussed. The literature relating to their effects is critically reviewed. Practical suggestions for their utilisation in the management of soft-tissue conditions are given and proposals are made for future research in this important area.

Comparison of four different intra-articular injection sites in the knee: a cadaver study

Although intra-articular knee injection is not a complicated procedure, it could be difficult to assess whether the tip of the needle lies free in the joint or is embedded in synovium or other intra-articular soft tissues. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy rate of intra-articular injection using anteromedial (AM), anterolateral (AL), lateral midpatellar (LMP), and medial midpatellar (MMP) portals in cadavers. In this study 156 knees of 78 fresh cadavers were included. Anterolateral and AM injection to both knees of 39 cadavers (78 knees) were performed. MMP and LMP injection to both knees of other 39 cadavers were also performed. Accuracy rate was the highest (85%) in the AL injection portal and lowest in the MMP portal (56%). In conclusion, the accuracy obtained with use of the MMP portal was significantly lower than that obtained with the use of either the AM (P < 0.05), AL (P < 0.0001), or LMP (P < 0.05) portal. Although AL injection site resulted in good intra-articular delivery with 85% accuracy rate and with a lower incidence of soft tissue infiltration, the results were not statistically significant when compared to AM and LMP portals. Therefore, any of these three portals might be preferred depending on the experience of the physician. On the other hand, 100% accuracy could not be obtained through any portals in the study, which should be kept in mind when treating knee problems with intra-articular medications.

Comparison of efficacy of arthroscopic lavage plus administration of corticosteroids, arthroscopic lavage plus administration of placebo, and joint aspiration plus administration of corticosteroids in arthritis of the knee: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of arthroscopic lavage plus administration of corticosteroids (ALC), arthroscopic lavage plus administration of placebo (ALP), and joint aspiration plus administration of corticosteroids (JAC) in knee arthritis, and to evaluate whether clinical or histologic characteristics determine outcome.

METHODS

Patients with knee arthritis (not due to gout, osteoarthritis, or septic arthritis) were randomized over 3 treatment arms: ALC, ALP, and JAC. The primary end point was event-free survival, with events defined as 1) recurrence or persistence of symptomatic knee swelling necessitating local re-treatment, or 2) nonimprovement of the knee joint score. Synovial tissue specimens were collected and analyzed histologically to identify predictive factors of responsiveness.

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients were enrolled; 3 patients did not receive their allocated therapy and 3 were lost to followup. The median time until recurrence was 9.6 months after ALC, 3.0 months after JAC, and 1.0 month after ALP, corresponding to a relative risk (RR) of arthritis recurrence of 2.2 for JAC (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.2-4.2, P = 0.02) and 4.7 for ALP (95% CI 2.3-9.4, P < 0.0001) compared with ALC. A high versus low synovial extent of fibrosis conferred an RR for recurrence of 5.7 (95% CI 1.6-20.5, P < 0.01) after ALC.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic lavage plus administration of corticosteroids was more effective than arthroscopic lavage plus administration of placebo or joint aspiration plus injection of corticosteroids. The absence of fibrosis was a histologic predictor of a beneficial response.

Steroid injection for osteoarthritis of the hip: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of fluoroscopically guided corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis (OA) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients with symptomatic hip OA were randomly allocated to receive placebo (10 mg bipuvicaine, 2 ml saline) (n = 21) or corticosteroid treatment (10 mg bipuvicaine, 40 mg triamcinolone hexacetonide) (n = 31). Patients were followed up for 1, 2, 3, and 6 months. The primary outcome measure was the pain improvement response, defined as a 20% decrease in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) pain score (on 5 100-mm visual analog scales [VAS]) (WOMAC20) from baseline to 2 months postinjection. Secondary outcomes were a 50% decrease in the WOMAC pain score (WOMAC50), changes in other WOMAC subscale scores, patient's global assessment of health (on a 100-mm VAS), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) quality of life indices. Analyses were based on the intent-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The mean WOMAC pain score fell 49.2% (decreasing from 310.1 mm to 157.4 mm) at 2 months postinjection in patients receiving corticosteroid, compared with a decrease of 2.5% (from 314.3 mm to 306.5 mm) in the placebo group (P < 0.0001). The proportion of WOMAC20 responders at 2 months' followup was significantly higher in the corticosteroid group (67.7%) compared with the placebo group (23.8%) (P = 0.004); similar proportions of WOMAC50 responders were observed between groups (61.3% in the corticosteroid group versus 14.3% in the placebo group; P = 0.001). Response differences were maintained at 3 months' followup (58.1% responders in the corticosteroid group versus 9.5% responders in the placebo group; P = 0.004). Significant differences in the WOMAC stiffness and physical function scores (P < 0.0001), patient's global health scores (P = 0.005), and SF-36 physical component scores (P = 0.04) were observed, with patients in the corticosteroid group showing greater improvements. There were no differences in the frequency of adverse events between groups.

CONCLUSION

This placebo-controlled trial confirms that corticosteroid injection can be an effective treatment of pain in hip OA, with benefits lasting up to 3 months in many cases. Future studies should address questions related to the benefits of repeated steroid injection and the effects of this treatment on disease modification.

A randomized, controlled study of a single intra-articular injection of etanercept or glucocorticosteroids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Glucocorticosteroids are used successfully for both systemic and intra-articular treatment of arthritis. Inhibitors of tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) are effective when administered systemically and this study was performed to compare the effect of intra-articular injection of these two substances.

DESIGN

A randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study with an independent observer. Thirty-eight patients with flare of arthritis in a single joint (wrist, elbow, or knee) were given intra-articular 25 mg etanercept or 40 mg methylprednisolone guided by ultrasound. The primary end-point was the 4-week change in pain in the target joint. The study complied with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement.

RESULTS

At 4 weeks no difference in pain outcome between treatment groups was demonstrated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Pain on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for etanercept was baseline mean 40.9 (SD 19.6) mm, follow-up 32.7 (29.1) mm (p = 0.29), methylprednisolone baseline mean 47.1 (29.6) mm, follow-up 25.3 (24.7) mm (p<0.001). The investigator's evaluation was for etanercept baseline 30.6 (21.2) mm, follow-up 17.1 (15.5) mm (p = 0.054) and for methylprednisolone baseline 35.4 (26.4) mm, follow-up 11.9 (14.6) mm (p = 0.012). Joint swelling was for etanercept baseline 1.78 (0.73), follow-up 1.25 (0.77) (p = 0.015) and for methylprednisolone baseline 1.74 (0.73), follow-up 0.71 (0.77) (p<0.001). One serious adverse event was seen in a patient treated with methylprednisolone injection.

CONCLUSION

Although no difference between groups was demonstrated, the within-group effect of methylprednisolone was more marked than that of etanercept. Injections with 25 mg etanercept were well tolerated. However, the cost of etanercept will presumably limit its use to patients with adverse reactions to steroid.

Safety of intra-articular injection of etanercept in small-joint arthritis: an uncontrolled, pilot-study with independent imaging assessment

This study was conducted to test the safety of intra-articular tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) antagonists in small joints with arthritis. A dose of 2-8 mg etanercept was given intra-articularly guided by ultrasonography (US) in 26 patients with a flare of arthritis in a particular joint (16 wrists, two elbows, two ankles, six finger joints). Primary end points were imaging analyses by independent investigators: US-Doppler measurements were performed in all patients before and after the injection and MRI before and after were obtained in nine patients. The only adverse event was a case of swelling of the hand lasting 2 days after a wrist injection. Two patients had a supplementary glucocorticoid injection and were excluded from efficacy analysis after 4 days and 3 weeks, respectively. VAS for pain decreased after 1 week in 23 of 25 patients (median 0.62), and after 1 month in 14 of 24 patients (median 0.60). No significant changes were seen in erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) or C-reactive protein (CRP). On MRI, all nine cases tested had a reduction in synovial thickness (P=0.008) and US Doppler signals diminished after treatment (resistance index (RI) P=0.02, pixels P=0.09). In conclusion, intra-articular injection of etanercept gave no noticeable adverse events.

Placement of intra-articular injection verified by the backflow technique

OBJECTIVE

To develop and to assess a simple, inexpensive method for ascertaining, without any imaging procedure, the intra-articular placement of the needle in the knee for intra-articular injections.

METHODS

Outpatients referred for intra-articular treatment with "dry" symptomatic knee osteoarthritis were included in this prospective study. "Dry" knee disease was defined as a knee without any clinically detectable effusion. Once intra-articular positioning of the needle considered adequate using the backflow technique, contrast solution was injected using the same needle without changing its position and immediately afterwards lateral and anterior-posterior X-rays were taken to assess the needle position.

RESULTS

Of the 32 of 33 cases with obtained backflow, the needle was correctly placed in all cases. In the remaining case, the needle was extra-articularly positioned. The concordance between the two techniques using the Cohen's Kappa was 1 [CI 95%: 0.22-1].

CONCLUSION

The backflow technique allows to accurate the intra-articular placement of the needle for "dry" knee joints injection. This technique can be proposed as a learning tool as well as a daily practice technique to ascertaining intra-articular knee injections without using fluoroscopy with injection of contrast material. Further studies are needed to assess the technique for other joint injections.

Therapeutic arthrography and bursography

Arthrography and bursography as therapeutic venues have found their place in the musculoskeletal procedure armamentarium. Therapeutic arthrography not only rules in and rules out the origin of pain but can provide 6 to 9 months of pain relief in diseased joints. Therapeutic arthrography allows injections of anesthetic, corticosteroid, or alternatively hyaluronic acid to be delivered accurately to the source of pain. Corticosteroids have a long history of use in osteoarthritis. Alternative therapy with hyaluronic acid is anew procedure. This article reviews the technique of arthrography in different joints and bursae and discusses the pros and cons of the use of corticosteroids versus viscosupplementation in therapeutic arthrography.

Viscosupplementation for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent chronic joint disorder worldwide and is associated with significant pain and disability.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of viscosupplementation in the treatment of OA of the knee. The products were hyaluronan and hylan derivatives (Adant, Arthrum H, Artz (Artzal, Supartz), BioHy (Arthrease, Euflexxa, Nuflexxa), Durolane, Fermathron, Go-On, Hyalgan, Hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc Hylan G-F 20), Hyruan, NRD-101 (Suvenyl), Orthovisc, Ostenil, Replasyn, SLM-10, Suplasyn, Synject and Zeel compositum).

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE (up to January (week 1) 2006 for update), EMBASE, PREMEDLINE, Current Contents up to July 2003, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. Specialised journals and reference lists of identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and pertinent review articles up to December 2005 were handsearched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of viscosupplementation for the treatment of people with a diagnosis of OA of the knee were eligible. Single and double-blinded studies, placebo-based and comparative studies were eligible. At least one of the four OMERACT III core set outcome measures had to be reported (Bellamy 1997).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each trial was assessed independently by two reviewers for its methodological quality using a validated tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer . Continuous outcome measures were analysed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). However, where different scales were used to measure the same outcome, standardized mean differences (SMD) were used. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed by relative risk (RR).

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-six trials with a median quality score of 3 (range 1 to 5) were identified. Follow-up periods varied between day of last injection and eighteen months. Forty trials included comparisons of hyaluronan/hylan and placebo (saline or arthrocentesis), ten trials included comparisons of intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, six trials included comparisons of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), three trials included comparisons of physical therapy, two trials included comparisons of exercise, two trials included comparisons of arthroscopy, two trials included comparisons of conventional treatment, and fifteen trials included comparisons of other hyaluronans/hylan. The pooled analyses of the effects of viscosupplements against 'placebo' controls generally supported the efficacy of this class of intervention. In these same analyses, differential efficacy effects were observed for different products on different variables and at different timepoints. Of note is the 5 to 13 week post injection period which showed a percent improvement from baseline of 28 to 54% for pain and 9 to 32% for function. In general, comparable efficacy was noted against NSAIDs and longer-term benefits were noted in comparisons against IA corticosteroids. In general, few adverse events were reported in the hyaluronan/hylan trials included in these analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the aforementioned analyses, viscosupplementation is an effective treatment for OA of the knee with beneficial effects: on pain, function and patient global assessment; and at different post injection periods but especially at the 5 to 13 week post injection period. It is of note that the magnitude of the clinical effect, as expressed by the WMD and standardised mean difference (SMD) from the RevMan 4.2 output, is different for different products, comparisons, timepoints, variables and trial designs. However, there are few randomised head-to-head comparisons of different viscosupplements and readers should be cautious, therefore, in drawing conclusions regarding the relative value of different products. The clinical effect for some products, against placebo, on some variables at some timepoints is in the moderate to large effect-size range. Readers should refer to relevant tables to review specific detail given the heterogeneity in effects across the product class and some discrepancies observed between the RevMan 4.2 analyses and the original publications. Overall, the analyses performed are positive for the HA class and particularly positive for some products with respect to certain variables and timepoints, such as pain on weight bearing at 5 to 13 weeks postinjection. In general, sample-size restrictions preclude any definitive comment on the safety of the HA class of products; however, within the constraints of the trial designs employed no major safety issues were detected. In some analyses viscosupplements were comparable in efficacy to systemic forms of active intervention, with more local reactions but fewer systemic adverse events. In other analyses HA products had more prolonged effects than IA corticosteroids. Overall, the aforementioned analyses support the use of the HA class of products in the treatment of knee OA.

Intraarticular corticosteroid for treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common joint disorder. In the knee, injections of corticosteroids into the joint (intraarticular (IA)) may relieve inflammation, and reduce pain and disability.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of IA corticosteroids in treatment of OA of the knee.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (to January (week 1) 2006 for update), EMBASE, PREMEDLINE (all to July 2003), and Current Contents (Sept 2000). Specialised journals, trial reference lists and review articles were handsearched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of IA corticosteroids for patients with OA of the knee: single/double blind, placebo-based/comparative studies, reporting at least one core OMERACT III outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Methodological quality of trials was assessed, and data were extracted in duplicate. Fixed effect and random effects models, giving weighted mean differences (WMD), were used for continuous variables. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed by relative risk (RR).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials (1973 participants) comparing IA corticosteroid against placebo, against IA hyaluronan/hylan (HA products), against joint lavage, and against other IA corticosteroids, were included.IA corticosteroid was more effective than IA placebo for pain reduction (WMD -21.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) -29.93 to -13.89) and patient global assessment (the RR was 1.44 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.82)) at one week post injection with an NNT of 3 to 4 for both, based on n=185 for pain on 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and n=158 for patient global assessment. Data on function were sparse at one week post injection and neither statistically significant nor clinically important differences were detected. There was evidence of pain reduction between two weeks (the RR was 1.81 (95% CI 1.09 to 3.00)) to three weeks (the RR was 3.11 (95% CI 1.61 to 6.01), but a lack of evidence for efficacy in functional improvement. At four to 24 weeks post injection, there was lack of evidence of effect on pain and function (small studies showed benefits which did not reach statistical or clinical importance, i.e. less than 20% risk difference). For patient global, there were three studies which consistently showed lack of effect longer than one week post injection. However, all were fairly small sample sizes (less than 50 patients per group). This was supported by another study which did not find statistically significant differences, at any time point, on a continuous measure of patient global assessment (100 mm VAS).In comparisons of corticosteroids and HA products, no statistically significant differences were in general detected at one to four weeks post injection. Between five and 13 weeks post injection, HA products were more effective than corticosteroids for one or more of the following variables: WOMAC OA Index, Lequesne Index, pain, range of motion (flexion), and number of responders. One study showed a difference in function between 14 to 26 weeks, but no differences in efficacy were detected at 45 to 52 weeks. In general, the onset of effect was similar with IA corticosteroids, but was less durable than with HA products. Comparisons of IA corticosteroids showed triamcinolone hexacetonide was superior to betamethasone for number of patients reporting pain reduction up to four weeks post injection (the RR was 2.00 (95% CI 1.10 to 3.63). Comparisons between IA corticosteroid and joint lavage showed no differences in any of the efficacy or safety outcome measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The short-term benefit of IA corticosteroids in treatment of knee OA is well established, and few side effects have been reported. Longer term benefits have not been confirmed based on the RevMan analysis. The response to HA products appears more durable. In this review, some discrepancies were observed between the RevMan 4.2 analysis and the original publication. These are likely the result of using secondary rather than primary data and the statistical methods available in RevMan 4.2. Future trials should have standardised outcome measures and assessment times, run longer, investigate different patient subgroups, and clinical predictors of response (those associated with inflammation and structural damage).

Current trends in crystal identification

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review is an attempt to keep current in the sparse literature addressing the still underutilized area of crystal identification.

RECENT FINDINGS

The emphasis has been on the subtleties of the microscopic identification of common crystals and other less common potentially confusing crystals. Imaging is noted to provide increasing help, but microscopic crystal identification remains the gold standard.

SUMMARY

Quality control is still a concern as is the infrequency of attempted arthrocentesis for crystal identification.

Intra-Articular Injections for Joint Disease in Horses

Lameness remains an important source of reduced performance in many types of horses. Pain referable to joints is among the most common causes, and intra-articular injections remain a common and important means of addressing lameness referable to joints in horses.

Overall tolerability and analgesic activity of intra-articular sodium hyaluronate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Viscosupplementation with intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) is an alternative to the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) with pain relieving drugs. Sinovial, is a sterile, non-pyrogenic 0.8% solution of highly purified sodium hyaluronate for intra-articular application. The aim of the present study was to investigate the safety and tolerability profile of this preparation in patients with symptomatic knee OA over 24 weeks.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a single group, open-label study, including outpatients of both sexes, aged between 18 and 85 years, with symptomatic knee OA. All patients underwent weekly intra-articular injections of HA for 5 consecutive weeks and were followed-up for 19 additional weeks. The safety and tolerability profile (primary endpoint) was assessed by adverse event (AE) reporting. The secondary endpoint was efficacy evaluated by changes in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score vs. baseline. Patient and physician satisfaction were also recorded.

RESULTS

Intra-articular HA was generally well tolerated. The most frequent AE was pain at the injection site (5.8% of the injections); no serious treatment-related AE was reported. The WOMAC score was significantly reduced within the first 2 weeks of treatment (from 4.02 +/- 1.90 to 3.55 +/- 2.04, p = 0.0011), further decreased by the end of the injection series (week 6: 2.59 +/- 1.90; p < 0.0001) and maintained during the follow-up (week 24: 2.44 +/- 1.88; p < 0.0001). The WOMAC subscores were also significantly reduced from week 4 for 'pain' and from week 6 for 'stiffness' and 'physical function'.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, intra-articular HA was well tolerated and safe in patients with symptomatic knee OA. Based on the sustained improvements in WOMAC score and subscores, a carry-over effect lasting for at least 19 weeks after the last injection may be proposed. These results further confirm the evidence of efficacy and safety of intra-articular HA in the management of knee OA.

Joint aspiration and injection

Joint aspiration/injection is an invaluable procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of joint disease. The knee is the commonest site to require aspiration although any non-axial joint is accessible for obtaining synovial fluid. Septic arthritis and crystal arthritis can be readily diagnosed by aspirating synovial fluid. Intra-articular injection of long-acting insoluble corticosteroids produces rapid resolution of inflammation in most injected joints and is a well established procedure in rheumatological practice. The technique involves only a knowledge of basic anatomy and should not be unduly painful for the patient. Provided sterile equipment and a sensible, aseptic approach are used it is a safe procedure. This chapter addresses the indications, technical principals, expected benefits and risks of intra-articular corticosteroid injection. The use of other intra-articular injections including osmic acid, radioisotopes and hyaluronic acid, which are less universally utilised than intra-articular corticosteroid, will also be addressed.

Disease-modifying therapies for osteoarthritis : current status

Osteoarthritis, the most common form of arthritis, is a debilitating progressive disease principally affecting the elderly. Osteoarthritis therapy has evolved in the past few decades from symptomatic treatment to possible disease-modifying solutions. In this paper, the pathophysiology of osteoarthritis is first reviewed, including an examination of the mechanisms underlying osteoarthritis and discussions of the roles of cartilage, synovial fluid and subchondral bone. The remainder of the paper discusses therapeutic approaches in current use and those in development, with special attention given to pharmacological treatments. Current approaches to treating osteoarthritis--i.e. medications; nonpharmacological modalities, such as physical therapy, exercise, weight management and orthotics; and (as a last resort) surgery--focus on reducing pain and improving (or at least maintaining) mobility. Drugs currently used to treat osteoarthritis fall into several categories: analgesics, NSAIDs, cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, corticosteroids, viscosupplementation, and symptomatic slow-acting drugs ('nutraceuticals'). The analgesics (paracetamol [acetaminophen] and opiates) have demonstrated less symptomatic efficacy than NSAIDs, while the latter have displayed mixed results in terms of joint space narrowing. COX-2 inhibitors have been demonstrated to be equal to or superior to NSAIDs in effectiveness. However, once considered a safer alternative, COX-2 inhibitors have become the subject of intense scrutiny since recent clinical evidence has cast suspicion on their cardiovascular safety profile. Injectable therapies, such as corticosteroids and viscosupplementation have elicited favorable short-term response but no long-term structural modification. On the other hand, the slow-acting drugs, especially chondroitin and glucosamine sulfate, have shown promising results. Also reviewed are other established and experimental therapies that seek to modify and/or even reverse the course of osteoarthritis. These include such medications as colchicine, bisphosphonates and hormones; dietary therapeutics, such as ginger extract and green tea; and such truly experimental treatments as matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors, cytokines, nitric oxide, growth factors and gene therapy. Osteoarthritis continues to be a difficult disorder to treat, as there is no cure as such and current treatments focus mainly on relieving pain and maintaining joint function. The search nevertheless continues for management regimens that can slow, alter or reverse the degenerative processes of osteoarthritis.

Intraarticular corticosteroid for treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common joint disorder. In the knee, injections of corticosteroids into the joint (intra-articular (IA)) may relieve inflammation, and reduce pain and disability.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of IA corticosteroids in treatment of OA of the knee.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PREMEDLINE (all to July 2003), and Current Contents (Sept 2000). Specialised journals, trial reference lists and review articles were handsearched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of IA corticosteroids for patients with OA of the knee: single/double blind, placebo-based/comparative studies, reporting at least one core OMERACT III outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Methodological quality of trials was assessed, and data were extracted in duplicate. Fixed effect and random effects models, giving weighted mean differences (WMD), were used for continuous variables. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed by relative risk (RR).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six trials (1721 participants) comparing IA corticosteroid against placebo, against IA hyaluronan/hylan (HA products), against joint lavage, and against other IA corticosteroids, were included.IA corticosteroid was more effective than IA placebo for pain reduction (WMD -17.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) -25.02 to -10.55) and patient global assessment (the RR was 1.44 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.82)) at one week post injection with an NNT of 3 to 4 for both, based on n=185 for pain on 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and n=158 for patient global assessment. Data on function were sparse at one week post injection and neither statistically significant nor clinically important differences were detected. There was evidence of pain reduction between two weeks (the RR was 1.81 (95% CI 1.09 to 3.00)) to three weeks (the RR was 3.11 (95% CI 1.61 to 6.01), but a lack of evidence for efficacy in functional improvement. At four to 24 weeks post injection, there was lack of evidence of effect on pain and function (small studies showed benefits which did not reach statistical or clinical importance, i.e. less than 20% risk difference). For patient global, there were three studies which consistently showed lack of effect longer than one week post injection. However, all were fairly small sample sizes (less than 50 patients per group). This was supported by another study which did not find statistically significant differences, at any time point, on a continuous measure of patient global assessment (100 mm VAS). In comparisons of corticosteroids and HA products, no statistically significant differences were in general detected at one to four weeks post injection. Between five and 13 weeks post injection, HA products were more effective than corticosteroids for one or more of the following variables: WOMAC OA Index, Lequesne Index, pain, range of motion (flexion), and number of responders. One study showed a difference in function between 14 to 26 weeks, but no differences in efficacy were detected at 45 to 52 weeks. In general, the onset of effect was similar with IA corticosteroids, but was less durable than with HA products. Comparisons of IA corticosteroids showed triamcinolone hexacetonide was superior to betamethasone for number of patients reporting pain reduction up to four weeks post injection (the RR was 2.00 (95% CI 1.10 to 3.63). Comparisons between IA corticosteroid and joint lavage showed no differences in any of the efficacy or safety outcome measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The short-term benefit of IA corticosteroids in treatment of knee OA is well established, and few side effects have been reported. Longer term benefits have not been confirmed based on the RevMan analysis. The response to HA products appears more durable. In this review, some discrepancies were observed between the RevMan 4.1 analysis and the original publication. These are likely the result of using secondary rather than primary data and the statistical methods available in RevMan 4.1. Future trials should have standardised outcome measures and assessment times, run longer, investigate different patient subgroups, and clinical predictors of response (those associated with inflammation and structural damage).

Viscosupplementation for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent chronic joint disorder worldwide and is associated with significant pain and disability.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of viscosupplementation in the treatment of OA of the knee. The products were hyaluronan and hylan derivatives (Adant, Arthrum H, Artz (Artzal, Supartz), BioHy (Arthrease), Durolane, Fermathron, Go-On, Hyalgan, Hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc Hylan G-F 20), NRD-101, Orthovisc, Ostenil, Replasyn, SLM-10, Suplasyn, Synject and Zeel compositum).

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PREMEDLINE, Current Contents up to July 2003, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. Specialised journals and reference lists of identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and pertinent review articles up to April 2004 were handsearched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of viscosupplementation for the treatment of people with a diagnosis of OA of the knee were eligible. Single and double-blinded studies, placebo-based and comparative studies were eligible. At least one of the four OMERACT III core set outcome measures had to be reported (Bellamy 1997).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each trial was assessed independently by two reviewers (NB, JC) for its methodological quality using a validated tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer (JC) and verified by a second reviewer (VR). Continuous outcome measures were analysed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed by relative risk (RR).

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-three trials with a median quality score of 3 (range 1 to 5) were identified. Follow-up periods varied between day of last injection and one year. Thirty-seven trials included comparisons of hyaluronan/hylan and placebo, nine trials included comparisons of intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, and five trials included comparisons of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The pooled analyses of the effects of viscosupplements against 'placebo' controls generally supported the efficacy of this class of intervention. In these same analyses, differential efficacy effects were observed for different products on different variables and at different timepoints. Of note is the 5 to 13 week post injection period which showed a percent improvement from baseline of 11 to 54% for pain and 9 to 15% for function. In general, comparable efficacy was noted against NSAIDs and longer-term benefits were noted in comparisons against IA corticosteroids. In general, few adverse events were reported in the hyaluronan/hylan trials included in these analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the aforementioned analyses, viscosupplementation is an effective treatment for OA of the knee with beneficial effects: on pain, function and patient global assessment; and at different post injection periods but especially at the 5 to 13 week post injection period. It is of note that based on non-randomised groups, the magnitude of the clinical effect, as expressed by the WMD and standardised mean difference (SMD) from the RevMan 4.1 output, is different for different products, comparisons, timepoints, variables and trial designs. However, there are few randomised head-to-head comparisons of different viscosupplements and readers should be cautious, therefore, in drawing conclusions regarding the relative value of different products. The clinical effect for some products, against placebo, on some variables at some timepoints is in the moderate to large effect-size range. Readers should refer to relevant tables to review specific detail given the heterogeneity in effects across the product class and some discrepancies observed between the RevMan 4.1 analyses and the original publications. Overall, the analyses performed are positive for the HA class and particularly positive for some products with respect to certain variables and timepoints, such as pain on weight bearing at 5 to 13 weeks postinjection. In general, sample-size restrictions preclude any definitive comment on the safety of the HA class of products; however, within the constraints of the trial designs employed no major safety issues were detected. In some analyses viscosupplements were comparable in efficacy to systemic forms of active intervention, with more local reactions but fewer systemic adverse events. In other analyses HA products had more prolonged effects than IA corticosteroids. Overall, the aforementioned analyses support the use of the HA class of products in the treatment of knee OA.

Musculoskeletal ultrasound

Over the last few years a sonographic revolution has occurred in rheumatology. Ultrasonography has been shown to be capable of substantially changing the traditional approach to most clinical problems in daily rheumatological practice because of its ability to allow a quick, safe and inexpensive access to otherwise undetectable anatomical information on the early targets of most rheumatic diseases. Ultrasonography completes the physical examination in a rapid and accurate manner and allows the detection of a wide spectrum of pathological findings involving different anatomical structures in the musculoskeletal system. Guidance for intervention (joint aspiration, synovial or soft tissue biopsy, joint or tendon sheath injection) is a major application of ultrasonography. Sonographic guidance is particularly useful when fluid collections are very small or when the inflammatory process is adjacent to anatomical structures that could be seriously damaged by the injection.

New developments in imaging for diagnosis and therapy monitoring in rheumatic diseases

The availability of therapeutic modalities that are able to stop inflammatory joint damage has also markedly influenced recent developments in muskuloskeletal imaging. One focus of interest is the detection of joint pathology as early as possible in order to prevent erosive bony changes. Ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging are the most valuable technologies in this respect. Another focus is on the exact assessment and documentation of joint damage using scoring systems not only in therapeutic trials, but also in clinical practice. In addition to these recent advances in peripheral and axial joint imaging, this chapter also discusses advances in vascular imaging and scintigraphy in rheumatoid diseases as well as interventional procedures guided by imaging technologies.

Interventional radiology and the musculoskeletal system

Imaging-guided interventional procedures are becoming increasingly important in clinical rheumatology, since arthrocentesis of peripheral joints and the spine, as well as soft tissue injections, have a high rate of para-articular localisation when performed as blind techniques. Ultrasound-guided needle placement is the method of choice for interventional procedures on peripheral joints and for soft tissue injections. Fluoroscopy and computed tomography (CT) are not recommended for these indications due to the application of ionising radiation and the high procedural effort. By contrast, CT and magnetic resonance imaging are preferred for a variety of percutaneous procedures on the spine and sacroiliac joints. The increasing use of these methods for interventional purposes should improve both technical and procedural quality, thus ensuring cost-effectiveness and patient safety.

Granulomatous synovitis after intraarticular Hylan GF-20. A report of two cases

Intraarticular hyaluronan injections are used to treat osteoarthritis of the knee. Acute painful swelling with a joint effusion develops locally after the injection in about 10% of cases but resolves spontaneously. Crystals are identifiable in some patients, but the mechanism in crystal-negative cases remains unknown. We report knee arthritis with inflammatory joint fluid free of organisms and crystals in two patients after Hylan GF-20 treatment for femorotibial osteoarthritis. Synovial membrane histology disclosed granulomatous synovitis with epithelioid histiocytic and multinucleate giant cells but no visible foreign bodies. These two cases suggest that crystal-negative arthritis after Hylan GF-20 injection may be ascribable to granulomatous synovitis of the foreign-body giant-cell type.

Impact of ultrasound imaging on local corticosteroid injections of symptomatic ankle, hind-, and mid-foot in chronic inflammatory diseases

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of ultrasonography (US) on local corticosteroid (CS) injections of painful ankle, hindfoot, and midfoot in chronic inflammatory diseases.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with chronic rheumatic diseases admitted to the hospital for local CS injections of painful ankle, hindfoot, or midfoot were enrolled in this study. Clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed by the physician in charge of CS injections, and US examination was performed by an independent examiner blinded to the clinical and radiologic findings. According to a randomized weekly-periods design, the physician planned CS injections either aware (G1 group) or unaware (G2 group) of US results. In the latter case, he was nonetheless informed of US results after he had performed the injections. Impact of this information on the treatment planning was assessed in all cases. Prognostic impact of US was also evaluated by comparing the change in global assessment of efficacy of CS injections, in activity of the disease, and in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) subscales after 1 and 3 months, between G1 and G2 groups.

RESULTS

The knowledge of US findings led the physician to change his decision of local CS injections in 56 (82%) of 68 patients studied. Among 1,131 assessed sites, by clinical, radiographic, and US evaluation, injection was cancelled in 37 (15%) of 242 proposed sites, whereas it was decided in 74 (8%) additional sites. After 1 month, there was an improvement in G1 as compared with G2 groups. The mean +/- SD change in WOMAC physical function subscale was 15.6 +/- 17.5 in G1 versus 8 +/- 13 in G2 (P = 0.0305). After 3 months, only the global assessment of efficacy of CS injections was statistically greater in G1 than in G2 group (P = 0.0170).

CONCLUSION

US frequently led the physician to change his diagnosis of inflammatory lesions in painful foot, and consequently his planning of CS injections. Moreover, US could improve the response to local treatment.

Injectable corticosteroids in modern practice

Long-lasting, crystalline suspensions of injectable corticosteroids have been used to treat joint and soft-tissue disorders for many years; they decrease inflammation by reducing local infiltration of inflammatory cells and mediators. Depot formulations differ in their characteristics. Compounds with low solubility are thought to have the longest duration of action but may cause tissue atrophy when used in soft tissues. Intra-articular corticosteroids are commonly used to treat osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis: meta-analyses confirm their benefit in reducing pain and symptoms. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections have been shown to be safe and effective for repeated use (every 3 months) for up to 2 years, with no joint space narrowing detected. Fewer clinical trials are available for extra-articular uses for injectable corticosteroids, although there is evidence of efficacy in a variety of soft-tissue conditions. The accuracy of injections affects outcomes. Postinjection flare, facial flushing, and skin and fat atrophy are the most common side effects. Systemic complications of injectable corticosteroids are rare.

Accuracy of anterior intra-articular injection of the glenohumeral joint

PURPOSE

Intra-articular glenohumeral injections are an important part of orthopaedic practices, and the therapeutic benefit and diagnostic information of certain injections is based on the premise of the injection reaching its desired target. This study assessed the accuracy of an anterior intra-articular injection in awake subjects without radiologic assistance.

TYPE OF STUDY

Case control study.

METHODS

Forty-one patients scheduled for magnetic resonance imaging arthrography underwent anterior placement of a spinal needle using a location just lateral to the coracoid as the anterior landmark for injection, without radiographic assistance. After the needle was placed and clinically estimated to be intra-articular, 1 mL of gadolinium was injected into the joint to determine accuracy of position. The presence of intra-articular contrast was judged as an accurate injection.

RESULTS

Only 26.8% (11 of 41) of injections placed anteriorly were actually intra-articular. The remaining were extra-articular, the most common location of error being either too medial or too superficial in the deltoid muscle.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our cadaveric study, we believed that an unassisted anterior injection to the glenohumeral joint would be accurately placed. However, this study shows that without some form of radiologic guidance, it is unlikely that an anteriorly placed intra-articular glenohumeral injection will be accurately placed in awake patients, and we do not recommend this technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.