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

Intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis: A qualitative study of patients' and clinicians' experiences

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of joint pain and disability. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACs) are often used in primary care once other recommended treatments have failed. Evidence shows that IACs provide short-term relief of osteoarthritis symptoms, yet little is known about patients' and primary care clinicians' experiences and beliefs about their use. We explored patients' and primary care clinicians' views about IACs, including the benefits, disadvantages, perceived risks of treatment, when they are used, and factors that affect decision-making.

METHODS

We conducted individual interviews with patients and primary care clinicians and used inductive thematic analysis to investigate their views and experiences of intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis (IACs).

FINDINGS

We interviewed 38 patients and 19 primary care clinicians. We identified 6 patient themes: variation in access; awareness of IACs; views of risk and trust; effectiveness of IACs; variation in onset and effect duration; and an alternative to undesirable treatments. In the interviews with clinicians, we identified an overarching theme of caution and competence, which included eight subthemes: confidence and (dis)comfort with practical procedures; risk of adverse outcomes; training; uncertainty about evidence and guidelines; technical uncertainties; IACs use on the osteoarthritis pathway; perceived benefits and impacts of IACs; and the possibility of placebo.

CONCLUSION

Patients and clinicians valued IACs' potential to relieve symptoms and improve quality of life. Variability in patients' access to treatment appears related to clinicians' confidence in delivering injections and their concerns about the evidence base. Variation in dose frequency and timing reflect clinicians' uncertainty about current guidance. Despite variation in effectiveness patients preferred IACs to other forms of pain medication and to delay or avoid surgery. IACs were mostly used as an adjunct treatment before surgery was offered. These findings can inform further research into the effectiveness of IACs and improvements in information and guidance.

Femoroacetabular Impingement and Groin Injuries Among Soccer Players

Groin injuries and femoroacetabular impingement are common among soccer players and can provide a challenge in diagnosis, as well as treatment. Nonoperative and operative measures are the 2 predominant treatments. This current review investigates the recent literature on groin and femoroacetabular impingement injuries in soccer players, as well as potential treatment modalities.

Injection of the Hip With Hyaluronic Acid Under Distraction Plus Neurectomy of the Femoral and Obturator Nerve

The hip is the location for many disorders, such as osteoarthritis, femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, avascular necrosis of the hip, and cartilage injuries, all of which cause chronic pain, disability, and limitation. It is estimated that 10% of the population ≥40 years of age will present with hip pain. The line of treatment goes from nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, physical therapy, lifestyle modification, intra-articular injections, and hip surgery. This will depend on the pathology, age, lifestyle, and sport activity of each patient. Currently, hip joint intra-articular injections represent a viable option for those patients who are not candidates for surgery or simply those who do not want surgery. Among the controversial indications for a hip injection is moderate-to-severe arthritis (grades III and IV). Hip injections are considered a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure, with a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 100% reported, and will differentiate between an intra-articular pathology versus an extra-articular pathology and a neuropathic pain arising from the lumbar spine. Radiofrequency nerve ablation or neurectomy of the femoral and obturator nerve has been implemented more frequently not only for patients with mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis but also in those who present with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and cartilage lesions who do not wish to undergo surgery.

Non-operative Treatment Options for Osteoarthritis in the Hip

With the increased disability associated with osteoarthritis (OA) progression, and the significant socioeconomic burden of joint replacement surgeries, there is a need for more reliable conservative treatments for patients presenting with hip OA. Most studies of OA treatments involve the knee. We conducted a literature search and reviewed non-operative hip OA treatment recommendations by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International, the American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, as well as Cochrane Reviews. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroid injections are the most supported and recommended options for hip OA; other medications with potential benefits for short-term pain relief include acetaminophen and tramadol. Most societies recommend against the use of glucosamine, typical opioids, and viscosupplementation injections. Platelet-rich plasma has potential benefits, but evidence of its effectiveness is incomplete. Further research is needed to better inform and guide clinicians who create treatment plans for patients with symptomatic hip OA.

Current evidence on mesenchymal stem cells for hip osteoarthritis: a narrative review

There are limited data on the use of mesenchymal stem cell injections for hip osteoarthritis. The goal of this study was to evaluate the literature by analyzing outcomes and comparing methodologies. Online search of PubMed, SportsDiscus and Case Reports Keywords was completed using the keywords 'stem cells' and 'hip' and 'osteoarthritis'. Six studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Five out the six studies had statistically significant improvement in patient reported outcomes after mesenchymal stem cell injections. Only two studies provided information on radiological changes and findings were positive. None of the studies reported major complications. Small series of non-randomized controlled trials completed to date in the use of mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis reported the procedures to be safe and provide a positive clinical response. Randomized controlled trials must be performed to further confirm mesenchymal stem cells as a treatment option for hip osteoarthritis.

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.

Hip Pain in Ballet Dancers: Evaluation and Management

Hip and groin injuries are common in ballet dancers, who often begin sport-specific training at a young age. The unique demands of ballet include extreme range of motion, with an emphasis on external rotation and abduction. This creates a distinctive constellation of hip symptoms and pathology in this cohort, which may differ from other flexibility sports. When managing hip symptoms in this cohort, orthopaedic surgeons should consider the unique factors associated with ballet, including ballet-specific movements, morphologic adaptations of the hip, and the culture of the sport. Three common etiologies of hip pain in ballet dancers include femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, hip instability, and extra-articular snapping hip syndrome. First-line treatment often consists of focused physical therapy to strengthen the core and periarticular hip musculature, with surgical management reserved for patients who fail to improve with conservative measures.

Radiologically Guided Versus Blinded Intra-articular Injection in Patients With Hip Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to present the clinical results of patients with Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) stage 2-4 hip osteoarthritis who were administered intra-articular corticosteroid (CS) or hyaluronic acid (HA), with or without fluoroscopy.

Methods:

This retrospective comparative study was conducted in the clinics where the authors worked between 2010 and 2018. Patients with stage 2-4 hip osteoarthritis according to KL criteria were included in the study. Age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists stages, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores (3rd, 6th, and 12th months) were recorded. Two groups were created as patients who underwent injection with or without fluoroscopy guidance. In group 1, CS (triamnisolone) was administered, and in group 2, sodium hyaluronate 88 mg/4 mL was administered. Obtained parameters were compared.

Results:

The WOMAC scores at 3 months of both the CS and HA groups were statistically significantly better than before the application, with the improvement in the CS group found to be significantly better than in the HA group (P = .047). At 6 months, the mean WOMAC scores of the CS and HA groups were better than prior to the application, and there was a statistically significant difference (P < .001). No significant difference was found in either the CS or HA group in the comparison of 12-month WOMAC scores with the baseline scores (P = .744 and P = .054).

Conclusion:

In symptomatic hip OA patients, intra-articular administration of CS and HA was seen to be effective at 3 and 6 months after administration. However, the effectiveness was determined to have disappeared within 1 year. Furthermore, in hip OA intra-articular drug applications, it was determined that the blinded technique without radiological guidance performed in the outpatient clinic is as effective and safe as the radiologically guided technique administered in the operating room.

Rapidly progressive idiopathic arthritis of the hip: incidence and risk factors in a controlled cohort study of 1471 patients after intra-articular corticosteroid injection

OBJECTIVE

Rapidly progressive idiopathic arthritis of the hip (RPIA) is defined by progressive joint space narrowing of > 2 mm or > 50% within 1 year. Our aims were to assess (a) the occurrence of RPIA after intra-articular steroid injection, and (b) possible risk factors for RPIA including: patient age, BMI, joint space narrowing, anesthetic and steroid selections, bone mineral density, and pain reduction after injection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective search of our imaging database identified 1471 patients who had undergone fluoroscopically guided hip injection of triamcinolone acetonide (Kenalog) and anesthetic within a 10-year period. Patient data, including hip DXA results and patient-reported pain scores, were recorded. Pre-injection and follow-up radiographs were assessed for joint space narrowing, femoral head deformity, and markers of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis was graded by Croft score. Associations between patient characteristics and outcome variables were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred six of 1471 injected subjects (7.2%) met the criteria for RPIA. A control group of 161 subjects was randomly selected from subjects who underwent hip injections without developing RPIA. Compared to controls, patients with RPIA were older, had narrower hip joint spaces, and higher Croft scores before injection (p < 0.05). Patients who developed RPIA did not differ from controls in sex, BMI, hip DXA T-score, anesthetic and steroid injectates, or pain improvement after injection.

CONCLUSION

We found that approximately 7% of patients undergoing steroid hip injection developed RPIA. More advanced patient age, greater joint space narrowing, and more severe osteoarthritis are risk factors for the development of RPIA after intra-articular steroid injection.

Mild to moderate osteoarthritis is not considered a contraindication to arthroscopic treatment of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement: results of an international survey

PURPOSE

Hip arthroscopy offers a minimally invasive approach for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Although osteoarthritis (OA) is a known negative prognostic factor for arthroscopy, it is unclear if patients with FAI and concomitant mild to moderate OA benefit from hip preservation surgery. The goal of this study was to evaluate current practice patterns among surgeons experienced in FAI management in the treatment of patients between 40 and 60 years of age with symptomatic FAI and concomitant OA of varying severity.

METHODS

A 12-question cross-sectional survey was distributed using a secure electronic survey portal. The survey sought to determine surgical treatment of FAI in patients between the ages of 40 and 60 years old with concomitant OA of various degrees. Surveys were completed electronically and anonymously, with invitations distributed to members of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, International Society for Hip Arthroscopy, Arthroscopy Association of Canada, Canadian Orthopaedic Association, and both current and former Fowler Kennedy sports medicine fellows.

RESULTS

A total of 76 orthopedic surgeons who treat FAI completed the survey. All respondents routinely treat FAI arthroscopically, while only 43.7% have utilized an open surgical approach. Nearly all respondents (96.0%) would consider performing hip arthroscopy in patients over 40 years of age. The respondents ranked an absence of OA (Tönnis 0 or 1) as the most important factor in deciding to move forward with surgery, while a positive response to diagnostic injection was considered the least important factor of the options given. Respondents felt that the role for hip arthroscopy in patients with symptomatic FAI decreased with increasing age and worsening degree of osteoarthritis. In patients 40-50 years old with Tönnis 1, willingness to perform surgery was 89.5%; while with Tönnis 2 this was reduced to 39.5% and with Tönnis 3 it was 5.3%. In patients 50-60 years old with Tönnis 1, 80.3% of respondents found arthroscopy to be beneficial; while with Tönnis 2 this was reduced to 22.4% and with Tönnis 3 it was 2.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents consider arthroscopy a viable option for patients aged 40-60 years old with mild osteoarthritis (Tönnis 1), while worsening osteoarthritis (Tönnis 3) results in greater rates of non-arthroscopic treatment. The role of arthroscopy with moderate osteoarthritis (Tönnis 2) remains unclear and should be a focus for future studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

Rapidly Destructive Hip Disease Following Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Injection of the Hip

BACKGROUND

While recent reports have suggested that hip corticosteroid injections can hasten joint degeneration, there are few published data on the topic. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate for an association between corticosteroid injection and rapidly destructive hip disease (RDHD) and to determine the rate of, and risk factors for, occurrence.

METHODS

This study was conducted in 2 parts. First, to assess for a potential association between hip corticosteroid injection and RDHD, a case-control analysis was performed. Patients who developed RDHD between 2013 and 2016 served as cases, whereas those who underwent total hip arthroplasty for diagnoses other than RDHD during the same period served as controls, and the exposure of interest was prior intra-articular hip corticosteroid injection. Second, in a retrospective cohort analysis, we analyzed all patients who received a fluoroscopically guided intra-articular hip corticosteroid injection at our institution from 2013 to 2016. The rate of post-injection RDHD was determined, and logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for occurrence.

RESULTS

In the case-control analysis, hip corticosteroid injection was associated with the development of RDHD (adjusted odds ratio, 8.56 [95% confidence interval, 3.29 to 22.3], p < 0.0001). There was evidence of a dose-response curve, with the risk of RDHD increasing with injection dosage as well as with the number of injections received. In the retrospective cohort analysis, the rate of post-injection RDHD was 5.4% (37 of 688). Cases of post-injection RDHD were diagnosed at an average of 5.1 months following injection and were characterized by rapidly progressive joint-space narrowing, osteolysis, and collapse of the femoral head.

CONCLUSIONS

This study documents an association between hip corticosteroid injection and RDHD. While the risk of RDHD following a single low-dose (≤40 mg) triamcinolone injection is low, the risk is higher following high-dose (≥80 mg) injection and multiple injections. These findings provide information that can be used to counsel patients about the risks associated with this common procedure. In addition, caution should be taken with intra-articular hip injections utilizing ≥80 mg of corticosteroid and multiple injections.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Impact of Prior Intra-articular Injections on the Risk of Prosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: The current review was designed to assess the impact of prior intra-articular injections on the risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) with a focus on the timing of injection before surgery.

Methods: The databases of PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar were searched up to 15th June 2021. All studies comparing the incidence of PJI with and without prior intra-articular injections were included. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for PJI.

Results: Nineteen studies were included. Both corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid injections were used before TJA in the included studies. Overall, comparing 127,163 patients with prior intra-articular injections and 394,104 patients without any injections, we noted a statistically significant increased risk of PJI in the injection group (RR 1.24 95% CI: 1.11, 1.38 I² = 48% p = 0.002). On subgroup analysis, there was a statistically significant increased risk of PJI in the injection group in studies where intra-articular injections were administered <12 months before surgery (RR 1.18 95% CI: 1.10, 1.27 I² = 7% p < 0.00001). Furthermore, on meta-analysis, we noted non-significant but increased risk of PJI when injections were administered 1 month (RR 1.47 95% CI: 0.88, 2.46 I² = 77% p = 0.14), 0–3 months (RR 1.22 95% CI: 0.96, 1.56 I² = 84% p = 0.11), and 3–6 months (RR 1.16 95% CI: 0.99, 1.35 I² = 49% p = 0.06) before surgery.

Conclusion: Our results indicate that patients with prior intra-articular injections have a small but statistically significant increased risk of PJI after TJA. Considering that PJI is a catastrophic complication with huge financial burden, morbidity and mortality; the clinical significance of this small risk cannot be dismissed. The question of the timing of injections and the risk of PJI still remains and can have a significant impact on the decision making.

Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021258297.

Safety of intraarticular corticosteroid injection preceding hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis amid resolving COVID-19 arthroplasty restrictions

Intraarticular corticosteroid injection (ICSI) is a widely practiced management for hip and knee osteoarthritis. Imposed delays to arthroplasty during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic have led us to postulate that many patients have opted for recent ICSI. We compared the odds of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients who were or were not administered ICSI within 12 months prior to hip or knee arthroplasty. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed in February 2021, with studies assessing the effect of ICS on PJI rates identified. All studies, which included patients that received ICSI in the 12 months prior to primary hip and knee arthroplasty, were included. In total 12 studies were included: four studies with 209 353 hips and eight studies with 438 440 knees. ICSI administered in the 12 months prior to hip arthroplasty increased the odds of PJI [odds ratio (OR) = 1.17, P = 0.04]. This was not the case for knees. Subgroup analysis showed significantly higher odds of PJI in both hip [OR = 1.45, P = 0.002] and knee arthroplasty [OR = 2.04; P = 0.04] when ICSI was within the preceding 3 months of surgery. A significantly higher odds of PJI were seen in patients receiving ICSI within the 12 months prior to hip arthroplasty. Subgroup analysis showed increased odds of PJI in both hip and knee arthroplasty, in patients receiving ICSI within 3 months prior to their arthroplasty. We recommend delaying knee arthroplasty for at least 3 months after ICSI and possibly longer for hip arthroplasty.

[Evaluation of treatment with intra-articular injections in osteoarticular pathology of the shoulder in primary care]

MAIN OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical response at 24weeks after injection, measured as pain relief and functional recovery, in painful shoulder syndrome (PSS) in primary care (PC).

DESIGN

Longitudinal case series with injection treatment in the scapulohumeral joint, describing functionality and pain evolution before and at 24weeks post injection.

LOCATION

Non-urban primary care centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with osteoarticular shoulder pathology susceptible to injection, failure of pharmacological treatment and rating on the visual analogue scale (VAS) ≥4 or constant score (CS) ≤70.

INTERVENTIONS

Intra-articular injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic into the scapulohumeral joint, describing its evolution at 1, 4, 12 and 24weeks post injection.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Infiltration response according to EVA before and after, CS before and after, number of infiltrations, side effects, temporary inability to work (TIL).

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients receiving injection, mean age 51.1years (SD 14.7), 57.6% were women and 63.3% were injection in the right shoulder. A 22.7% required TIL and were discharged with a median of 14days (range 7-56days). They required an injection (80.3%) and the most frequent injection pathology was rotator cuff tendinitis (90.9%). They suffered mild side effects (9.4%). We found a decrease in pain from severe to mild and a functional improvement from poor to good. The variables: being retired (OR: 37.82, P=.001) and having an EVA score prior to injection >8 (OR: 15.67, P=.055, almost significant) were associated with poor response.

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-articular administration of corticosteroids in PSS reduces pain and provides functional improvement after the first week after injection, and is maintained in the long term. This allows a quick recovery to work after an injection at two weeks reducing recovery time by 50%, with few side effects.

Predicting outcomes in patients undergoing intra-articular corticosteroid hip injections

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the associations between clinical, procedural, and radiographic factors and outcomes of steroid hip injections, including long-term and immediate pain reduction, time to arthroplasty, time to reinjection, and the total number of injections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All intra-articular anesthetic and steroid injections of the hip under fluoroscopic guidance between January 2014 and March 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Hip radiographs were scored using the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) scores. Immediate pain relief and response were evaluated using a change in visual analog scale and OMERACT-OARSI criteria respectively. Long-term pain relief was evaluated at 2‑7 months after injection by reviewing the medical records. Correlation between patient characteristics, procedural variations, and radiographic factors with injection outcomes was analyzed by using linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 361 injections, 79.8% showed an immediate pain response and 32.7% had subjective long-term pain relief (> 2 months). There was no significant correlation between immediate pain relief and response with long-term pain relief and other outcomes. Older age and higher KL score, OARSI-central joint space narrowing (JSN), and inferior acetabular osteophyte were correlated with long-term pain relief (p = 0.01‑0.03). Higher KL and OARSI grades, particularly JSN, were significantly correlated with increased immediate pain relief and total number of injections but decreased time to arthroplasty. Baseline pain positively correlated with immediate pain response (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Older patients with higher grades of radiographic OA and high baseline pain were good candidates for steroid injections, particularly for those patients awaiting hip arthroplasty.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Impact of Prior Intra-articular Injections on the Risk of Prosthetic Joint Infection Following Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: The current review was designed to assess the impact of prior intra-articular injections on the risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) with a focus on the timing of injection before surgery. Methods: The databases of PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar were searched up to 15th June 2021. All studies comparing the incidence of PJI with and without prior intra-articular injections were included. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for PJI. Results: Nineteen studies were included. Both corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid injections were used before TJA in the included studies. Overall, comparing 127,163 patients with prior intra-articular injections and 394,104 patients without any injections, we noted a statistically significant increased risk of PJI in the injection group (RR 1.24 95% CI: 1.11, 1.38 I² = 48% p = 0.002). On subgroup analysis, there was a statistically significant increased risk of PJI in the injection group in studies where intra-articular injections were administered <12 months before surgery (RR 1.18 95% CI: 1.10, 1.27 I² = 7% p < 0.00001). Furthermore, on meta-analysis, we noted non-significant but increased risk of PJI when injections were administered 1 month (RR 1.47 95% CI: 0.88, 2.46 I² = 77% p = 0.14), 0-3 months (RR 1.22 95% CI: 0.96, 1.56 I² = 84% p = 0.11), and 3-6 months (RR 1.16 95% CI: 0.99, 1.35 I² = 49% p = 0.06) before surgery. Conclusion: Our results indicate that patients with prior intra-articular injections have a small but statistically significant increased risk of PJI after TJA. Considering that PJI is a catastrophic complication with huge financial burden, morbidity and mortality; the clinical significance of this small risk cannot be dismissed. The question of the timing of injections and the risk of PJI still remains and can have a significant impact on the decision making. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021258297.

All-suture anchors in arthroscopic acetabular labral repair: our experience

Background:

Over the past years, the role of the acetabular labrum in hip joint biomechanics and its relations with joint health has been of particular interest. There is a good clinical improvement of patients in whom the acetabular labrum is preserved during arthroscopic hip surgery. The purpose of this study is to report the results of arthroscopic repair of labral tears at a medium term follow up.

Materials and methods:

We performed a retrospective review of all cases that underwent hip arthroscopy at our Institution from January 2013 until December 2018. There were 24 patients, 13 males and 11 females, and their mean age at the time of surgery was 29, 42 years (range, 19 to 43 years). All patients were treated by the same surgeon with an extracapsular OUT-IN approach. Suture was performed using a non-absorbable suture anchor all-suture. Clinical assessment was performed at December 2019 using a modified Harris hip score (mHHS), hip outcomes score activities of daily living (HOS ADL), hip outcomes score activities of sport scale (HOS SS). All patients with acetabular labrum injury had femoro-acetabular impingement.

Results:

The mean overall values in the preoperative period were 67.21 ± 10.31 for mHHS, 70.04 ± 12.11 for HOS-ADL and 60.06 ± 14.58 for HOS –SS. The results obtained in the re-evaluations of patients in December 2019 with a mean follow-up of 38, 3 months (minimum 1 year) are on average 82.17 ± 11.36 for mHHS, 83.00 ± 12.80 for HOS-ADL and 76.09 ± 18.52 for HOS-SS.

Conclusions:

The progress of knowledge and the advancement of diagnostic and therapeutic skills has led to a greater awareness of the importance of treating acetabular labrum tears. Arthroscopic treatment with suture appear to be a good option for these patients and we had encouraging results in our center. (www.actabiomedica.it)

All About the Ligamentum Teres: From Biomechanical Role to Surgical Reconstruction

Intriguing anatomists and surgeons for centuries, the exact function and biomechanical significance of the ligamentum teres (LT) remains incompletely understood. The LT, also described as the ligamentum femoris capitis, is an intra-articular extrasynovial ligament extending from the cotyloid fossa of the acetabulum to the fovea on the femoral head. Some studies have described it as a vestigial structure in the adult hip. More recent biomechanical studies, however, along with histological and anatomical studies, have suggested the LT to have an important function in proprioception, nociception, and as a secondary stabilizer of the hip joint. The advent and increased utilization of hip arthroscopy to treat hip pathology over the past two decades has ignited a renewed interest in the role of the LT, as well as techniques and indications for management of pathology. In the constellation of intra-articular pain generators of the hip, LT injuries have historically been difficult to diagnose through physical examination or advanced imaging. Numerous classification systems have been proposed based on arthroscopic appearance, and for most cases, conservative management is adequate. In patients undergoing hip arthroscopy, LT débridement usually suffices, although in cases of persistent pain and severe instability, reconstruction of the ligament may be indicated. Multiple methods for reconstruction have been described, with the greatest variation in the method of acetabular fixation of the graft. Future research should focus on clarifying the role of the LT, appropriate surgical indications for reconstruction, and optimization of graft fixation within the acetabulum.

Treatment of Osteoarthritis Secondary to Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip with Prolotherapy Injection versus a Supervised Progressive Exercise Control

BACKGROUND Osteoarthritis secondary to developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is one of the major causes of hip pain and disability. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of prolotherapy (PrT) injections versus exercise protocol for the treatment of DDH. MATERIAL AND METHODS There were 46 hips of 41 patients who had osteoarthritis secondary to DDH included in this study. Patients were divided into 2 groups: treated with PrT (PrT group; n=20) and exercise (control group; n=21). Clinical outcomes were evaluated with visual analog scale for pain (VAS) and Harris hip score (HHS) at baseline, 3 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and a minimum of 1-year follow-up. In PrT group clinical results were also compared in Crowe type I-IV hips. RESULTS Between group analysis revealed no significant between group differences at baseline. Dextrose injection recipients out performed exercise controls for VAS pain change score at 6 months (-4.6±2.6 versus -2.8±2.5; P=0.016), and 12 months (-4.5±2.4 versus -2.9±2.5; P=0.017) and for HHS at 6 months (24.2±14.0 versus 14.8±12.4; P=0.007) and 12 months (24.3±13.4 versus 16.5±11.3; P=0.018). CONCLUSIONS To our best knowledge, this study is the first regarding the effects of an injection method in the treatment of osteoarthritis secondary to DDH. According to our study, PrT is superior to exercises. PrT could provide significant improvement for clinical outcomes in DDH and might delay surgery.

Ultrasound practice for chronic pain procedures: A comprehensive review

Chronic pain management techniques have evolved in recent years. With regard to this, ultrasound (US) technology has become a standard for most acute pain procedures and essential for postsurgical pain relief and enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. This manuscript summarizes clinical studies evaluating US use for chronic pain management and compares efficacy with standard techniques including fluoroscopy (FL). US possesses several unique benefits when compared with FL, including elimination of radiation exposure while providing similar clinical outcomes. In summary, US use for chronic pain procedures is emerging as a viable, safe, and effective modality. Additional studies are needed to best appreciate US and its role in chronic pain management.

Surgical Treatment of Labral Tears: Debridement, Repair, Reconstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the rapid growth of hip arthroscopy over the past decade, new treatment paradigms as well as recognition of new disease states have sprung forth. The ability to perform complex arthroscopic procedures of the hip such as labral augmentation and reconstruction is essential for hip arthroscopists in the revision setting, with patient selection and indications for various labral treatments the key driver for improved short- and mid-term clinical outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current techniques have been developed to address disease states where the labrum is either unstable, torn, deficient, or otherwise incompetent. Many early reports focused on the description of these techniques with new literature reporting short- and mid-term outcomes. A few of these have demonstrated improved outcomes with a contemporary arthroscopy with emphasis on capsule preservation and repair. Studies have demonstrated that labral repair has improved outcomes over labral debridement, with results of labral reconstruction in a revision approaching those of labral repair. In addition, newer reports have shown significantly improved outcomes and survivorship with capsule repair and therefore should be included in every hip arthroscopy.

The Safety of Hip Arthroscopy within 3 Months of an Intra-Articular Injection

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injections have become a mainstay in the diagnosis and treatment of various hip disorders. Concern arises with regard to the chronological proximity of an injection to subsequent arthroscopy. Thus, the purpose of this study was to report the risk of postoperative infections among patients who have undergone an intra-articular corticosteroid injection within 3 months of hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

In-office, ultrasound-guided, intra-articular hip injections were first performed at this center in 2011. Corticosteroid is used for therapeutic purposes in the presence of painful hip conditions to reduce joint symptoms, either to allow for more effective supervised physical therapy or simply as a last line of nonoperative management. A retrospective review of patient records was performed, identifying all patients who had undergone arthroscopy and had received an intra-articular injection of corticosteroid at this institution within 3 months of the surgical procedure.

RESULTS

Five hundred patients underwent an ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection of corticosteroid within 3 months of a hip arthroscopy. The mean age was 37.6 years (range, 14 to 74 years), with 112 male patients and 388 female patients. The mean time between the injection and the arthroscopy was 59 days (range, 15 to 92 days). There were no postoperative infections.

CONCLUSIONS

When both the injection and the procedure are performed in a tertiary referral center, an ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection of corticosteroid within 3 months prior to arthroscopy, at a mean time of 59 days, resulted in no postoperative infections among 500 cases and can represent an acceptably low rate of complication. To our knowledge, this is the largest reported series on this subject.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Ultrasound-Guided Hip Injections

The diagnosis of hip pain can be difficult to isolate because the discomfort can originate from several locations and compensatory pain patterns. Pain generators can include the intra- and extra-articular hip structures, the lumbar spine, the pelvic floor, or a combination of these. It can also be referred as pain from the bowel, bladder, or reproductive organs. Injections into and around the hip have become an important part of both diagnostic and nonsurgical treatment algorithm for hip pain. The proximity of the hip to important neurovascular structures, lack of palpable anatomic landmarks, and deep location of targets can make use of ultrasonography-guided injections ideal. These injections have been growing in popularity in the orthopedic community because ultrasonography allows for a real-time visualization of dynamic anatomy without any radiation exposure to the patient and physician. The use of ultrasonography has allowed for in-office image guidance with improved accuracy for more targeted and advanced procedures. The patient's response to these injections can help guide patient selection for surgery and allow for better pain control of the soft-tissue pathology that often accompanies intra-articular pathology. This article highlights the diagnostic and therapeutic value of ultrasonography-guided hip injections for an orthopedic practice. The focus is on sonographic anatomy, introduction to technique, common indications, and pearls and pitfalls of these procedures.

Ultrasound-Guided Intra-Articular Injection of the Hip: The Nashville Sound

Ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection has become a mainstay in the diagnosis and treatment of a variety of hip disorders. It is the single greatest adjunct to history and examination in the clinical assessment of hip problems and has substantial therapeutic value in the conservative management of symptomatic disorders, especially when used in conjunction with supervised physical therapy.

Differing efficacies of autologous platelet-rich plasma treatment in reducing pain following rotator-cuff injury in a single patient

Rotator-cuff tears (RCTs) are typically associated with chronic pain. The most common treatment for reducing pain is the injection of cortisone into the injury site. An alternative and increasingly used technique is the injection of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP). A limitation of cortisone is its pain relief is short-lived, while PRP has the limitation of providing pain relief to only about 50% of patients, making its efficacy questioned, although when it is effective, its efficacy is longer than cortisone. Little is known about what accounts for these limitations. This paper presents results from a patient with RCTs causing excruciating pain who received an injection of PRP into that shoulder resulting in complete pain elimination that was ongoing at 2 years and 2 months. When 7-month severe posttrauma pain associated with the RCT developed in the contralateral shoulder, PRP prepared the same way and injected by the same person who performed the first injection provided no pain relief. However, a subsequent single cortisone injection resulted in complete pain elimination, which was ongoing at >15 months. These observations indicate that PRP can have inconsistent effects in reducing pain, not only between patients but also within the same patient. Further, although the pain relief induced by cortisone is normally not long-lasting, when given following a PRP injection, it can induce complete pain relief lasting >15 months. This paper discusses possible reasons for the variability in PRP efficacy on pain relief and addresses the possibility that when administered together, PRP and cortisone may act in a complementary manner, leading to significantly greater and longer-lasting pain relief.

The interface between periacetabular osteotomy, hip arthroscopy and total hip arthroplasty in the young adult hip

Hip pain is highly prevalent in both the younger and the elderly population. In older patients, pain arising from osteoarthritis (OA) is most frequent, whereas in younger patients, non-degenerative diseases are more often the cause of pain. The pain may be caused by hip dysplasia and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).Abnormal mechanics of the hip are hypothesized by some authors to cause up to 80% of OA in the hip. Therefore, correction of these abnormalities is of obvious importance when treating young patients with hip pain.Hip dysplasia can be diagnosed by measuring a CE angle < 25° on a plain standing radiograph of the pelvis.Dysplastic or retroverted acetabulum with significant symptoms should receive a periacetabular osteotomy (PAO).FAI with significant symptoms should be treated by adequate resection and, if necessary, labrum surgery.If risk factors for poor outcome of joint-preserving surgery are present (age > 45 to 50 years, presence of OA, joint space < 3 mm or reduced range of motion), the patient should be offered a total hip arthroplasty (THA) instead of PAO.THA can be performed following PAO with outcomes similar to a primary THA.Hip arthroscopy is indicated in FAI (cam and pincer) and/or for labral tears. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:408-417. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170042.

Refractory pain following hip arthroscopy: evaluation and management

With increased knowledge and understanding of hip pathology, hip arthroscopy is rapidly becoming a popular treatment option for young patients with hip pain. Despite improved clinical and radiographic outcomes with arthroscopic treatment, some patients may have ongoing pain and less than satisfactory outcomes. While the reasons leading to failed hip arthroscopy are multifactorial, patient selection, surgical technique and rehabilitation all play a role. Patients with failed hip arthroscopy should undergo a thorough history and physical examination, as well as indicated imaging. A treatment plan should then be developed based on pertinent findings from the workup and in conjunction with the patient. Depending on the etiology of failed hip arthroscopy, management may be nonsurgical or surgical, which may include revision arthroscopic or open surgery, periacetabular osteotomy or joint arthroplasty. Revision surgery may be appropriate in settings including, but not limited to, incompletely treated femoroacetabular impingement, postoperative adhesions, heterotopic ossification, instability, hip dysplasia or advanced degeneration.

Hip Osteoarthritis: Etiopathogenesis and Implications for Management

Highly prevalent among the elderly, hip osteoarthritis (OA) carries a heavy burden of disease. Guidelines for the management of hip OA are often extrapolated from knee OA research, despite clear differences in the etiopathogenesis and response to treatments of OA at these sites. We propose that hip OA requires specific attention separate from other OA phenotypes. Our understanding of the etiopathogenesis of hip OA has seen significant advance over the last 15 years, since Ganz and colleagues proposed femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) as an important etiological factor. This narrative review summarizes the current understanding of the etiopathogenesis of hip OA and identifies areas requiring further research. Therapeutic approaches for hip OA are considered in light of the condition’s etiopathogenesis. The evidence for currently adopted management strategies is considered, especially those approaches that may have disease-modifying potential. We propose that shifting the focus of hip OA research and public health intervention to primary prevention and early detection may greatly improve the current management paradigm.

Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid Compared to Traditional Conservative Treatment in Dogs with Osteoarthritis Associated with Hip Dysplasia

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of the intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid injection to traditional conservative treatment (TCT) in dogs with osteoarthritis (OA) induced by hip dysplasia. Sixteen dogs were distributed into two groups: Hyal: IA injection of hyaluronic acid (5-10 mg), and Control: IA injection with saline solution (0.5-1.0 mL) in combination with a TCT using an oral nutraceutical (750-1000 mg every 12 h for 90 days) and carprofen (2.2 mg/kg every 12 h for 15 days). All dogs were assessed by a veterinarian on five occasions and the owner completed an assessment form (HCPI and CPBI) at the same time. The data were analyzed using unpaired t test, ANOVA, and Tukey's test (P < 0.05). Compared with baseline, lower scores were observed in both groups over the 90 days in the veterinarian evaluation, HCPI, and CPBI (P < 0.001). The Hyal group exhibited lower scores from 15 to 90 and 60 to 90 days, in the CBPI and in the veterinarian evaluation, respectively, compared to the Control group. Both treatments reduced the clinical signs associated with hip OA. However, more significant results were achieved with intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection.