Outcomes of intra-articular corticosteroid injections for adolescents with hip pain

Corticosteroid Injections Administered Within 4 Weeks Prior to Hip Arthroscopy Are Associated With Higher Rates of Postoperative Infection

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association between the timing of intra-articular hip corticosteroid injections and the risk of postoperative infection in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

The 2010-2021 PearlDiver M157 administrative claims database was queried for patients who underwent hip arthroscopy. Patients who received intra-articular corticosteroid injections within 12 weeks prior to arthroscopy were matched 1:1 to patients who did not receive such injections based on age, sex, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, as well as the presence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, and tobacco use. Those with injections prior to arthroscopy were subdivided based on having received injections within 12 weeks prior to surgery. To verify that the corticosteroid injections and surgical procedures were conducted in the hip joint, Current Procedural Terminology codes were used. By use of Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases (ninth revision and tenth revision) coding, postoperative surgical-site infection after corticosteroid injection was evaluated. The impact of the timing of preoperative corticosteroid injections on the incidence of postoperative infection was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 12,390 hip arthroscopy cases were identified, including 3,579 patients who received corticosteroid injections 0 to 4 weeks prior to surgery; 4,759, within 4 to 8 weeks prior to surgery; and 4,052, within 8 to 12 weeks prior to surgery. Compared with controls, patients who received corticosteroid injections within 0 to 4 weeks preoperatively had a significantly higher rate of surgical-site infection (odds ratio, 2.43; P = .0001). No significant differences in infection rates were observed at the later time intervals (4-8 weeks or 8-12 weeks). Furthermore, in comparison to controls, patients who received corticosteroid injections had a significantly higher rate of wound dehiscence (odds ratio, 1.84; P = .0007).

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-articular corticosteroid injections within 4 weeks prior to hip arthroscopy were significantly associated with increased surgical-site infection rates after hip arthroscopy surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Clinical Equipoise in the Management of Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome and Concomitant Tönnis Grade 2 Hip Osteoarthritis or Greater: An International Expert-Panel Delphi Study

PURPOSE

To gather global-expert opinion on the management of patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and Tönnis grade 2 hip osteoarthritis (OA) or greater.

METHODS

An internet-based modified Delphi methodology was used via an online platform (Online Surveys) using the CREDES (Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies) guidelines. The expert panel comprised 27 members from 18 countries: 21 orthopaedic surgeons (78%), 5 physiotherapists (18%), and 1 dual orthopaedic surgeon-sport and exercise medicine physician (4%). Comments and suggestions were collected during each round, and amendments were performed for the subsequent round. Between each pair of rounds, the steering panel provided the experts with a summary of results and amendments. Consensus was set a priori as minimum agreement of 80%.

RESULTS

Complete participation (100%) was achieved in all 4 rounds. A final list of 10 consensus statements was formulated. The experts agreed that there is no single superior management strategy for FAIS with Tönnis grade 2 OA and that Tönnis grade 3 OA and the presence of bilateral cartilage defects (acetabular and femoral) is a contraindication for hip preservation surgery. Nonoperative management should include activity modification and physiotherapy with hip-specific strengthening, lumbo-pelvic mobility training, and core strengthening. There was no consensus on the need for 3-dimensional imaging for initial quantification of joint degeneration.

CONCLUSIONS

There is clinical equipoise in terms of the best management strategy for patients with FAIS and Tönnis grade 2 OA, and therefore, there is an urgent need to perform a randomized controlled trial for this cohort of patients to ascertian the best management strategy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

Patient characteristics cannot predict the long-term effect of an intra-articular bupivacaine and corticosteroid injection in patients with femoroacetabular impingement: A retrospective cohort study

Background

To evaluate predictors for effect of an intra-articular (IA) bupivacaine and corticosteroid injection in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

Methods

All patients between 18 and 50 years old with FAIS who received an intra-articular (IA) bupivacaine and corticosteroid injection between 2016 and 2019 were eligible for this retrospective study. Two groups were made, the non-arthroscopy group (patients for whom conservative treatment with physiotherapy and an IA bupivacaine and corticosteroid injection was sufficient) and the arthroscopy group (patients who needed an arthroscopy because conservative treatment and an IA bupivacaine and corticosteroid injection failed). Multiple regression analysis was performed to analyse the effect of the IA corticosteroid injection and to predict arthroscopic intervention based on sex, age, body mass index, duration of complaints, alpha angle and abnormal bone morphology.

Results

In total 103 patients were included; 46 in the arthroscopy group and 57 in the non-arthroscopy group. The groups had similar baseline characteristics. A total of 37 (36%) patients had an effect of 3 months or longer from the IA corticosteroid injection; 31 (54%) were patients in the non-arthroscopy group versus 6 (13%) patients in the arthroscopy group (P < 0.001). Male sex seems to have an negative influence on the duration of the effect of the injection. None of the variables could significantly predict if a patient would undergo arthroscopic intervention (F(7,103) = 8.54, p = 0.3, R2 = 0.11). The effect of the IA injection could not be predicted (p = 0.1; R2 = 0.13).

Conclusion

There are no patient characteristics that predict who would and who would not benefit from the IA bupivacaine and corticosteroid injection in patients with FAIS and who would need an arthroscopic intervention within 1 year after the injection. Only male sex seems to have an negative influence on the duration of the effect of the injection.

No evidence exists on outcomes of non-operative management in patients with femoroacetabular impingement and concomitant Tönnis Grade 2 or more hip osteoarthritis: a scoping review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this scoping review was to assess the outcomes of all the non-operative modalities of management for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and concomitant osteoarthritis (OA) Tönnis Grade 2 or more.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed was performed from inception to December 1st 2021 for literature on outcomes of non-operative management strategies for young adults with symptomatic FAI using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Cohorts investigating FAI and concomitant hip OA Tönnis Grade 2 or more were considered eligible. Studies not written in English or German, below level 4 evidence, and reviews were excluded. A secondary analysis for FAI without OA stratification was conducted after the initial screening to allow identification of available non-operative interventions.

RESULTS

No study reported outcomes separately for non-operative management of FAI with Tönnis Grade 2 OA or more and as such, did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. A secondary analysis included 24 studies that reported on outcomes for non-operative interventions for FAI irrespective of the degree of degeneration. Three studies investigated the efficacy of hyaluronic acid injection, 5 reports investigated corticosteroid injections, 2 studies evaluated the outcomes of hip bracing and 16 studies included a physiotherapy programme. Associations between the aforementioned interventions were analysed. There is level I evidence supporting the efficacy of activity modification and hip-specific physiotherapy for FAI and mild OA. Core-strengthening exercises are prevalent amongst successful regimens in the literature. Contradictory evidence questions the efficacy of hip bracing even for short-term outcomes. Corticosteroid injections have mostly failed in intention-to treat analyses but may be valuable in delaying the need for surgery; further studies are warranted. Reports on outcomes following hyaluronic acid injections are contradictory.

CONCLUSION

No evidence exists on outcomes following non-operative management of FAI with concomitant Tönnis Grade 2 or more OA of the hip. Further studies are required and should explore the non-operative interventions that were employed for FAI and milder OA. There is strong evidence for a hip-specific physiotherapy program including activity modification and core strengthening exercises. Adjunct interventions such as corticosteroid injections and NSAID consumption may be valuable in delaying the need for surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Comparing the Risk of Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head Following Intra-Articular Corticosteroid and Hyaluronic Acid Injections

BACKGROUND

Although intra-articular corticosteroid injections (CSIs) are a cornerstone in the nonoperative management of hip pathology, recent reports have raised concerns that they may cause osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). However, these studies might have been limited by nonrepresentative patient samples. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of ONFH after CSI and compare it with the incidence in a similar patient population that received a non-CSI injection.

METHODS

This was a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study of patients in the MarketScan database who underwent an intra-articular hip injection from 2007 to 2017. Patients receiving hip CSIs were matched 4:1 with patients receiving hip hyaluronic acid injections (HAIs) based on age, sex, geographic region, comorbidities, type of hip pathology, injection year, and baseline and follow-up time using propensity scores. The patients' first injections were identified, and the time to development of ONFH was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional-hazards models. Patients with a history of osteonecrosis or those who received both types of injections were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 3,710 patients undergoing intra-articular hip injection were included (2,968 CSIs and 742 HAIs; mean [standard deviation] age, 53.1 [9.2] years; 55.4% men). All baseline factors were successfully matched between the groups (all p > 0.57). The estimated cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval [CI]) of ONFH for CSI and HAI patients was 2.4% (1.8% to 3.1%) versus 2.1% (1.1% to 3.5%) at 1 year and 2.9% (2.2% to 3.7%) versus 3.0% (1.7% to 4.8%) at 2 years (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.84; p = 0.88). The results held across a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of ONFH after intra-articular hip injection was similar between patients who received CSIs and those who received HAIs. Although this study could not determine whether intra-articular injections themselves (regardless of the drug that was used) lead to ONFH, the results suggest that ONFH after CSI often may be due, in part, to the natural course of the underlying disease. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to definitively answer this question; in the interim, clinicians may be reassured that they may continue judicious use of CSIs as clinically indicated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Acetabular labral tears in the adolescent athlete: results of a graduated management protocol from therapy to arthroscopy

This study sought to determine outcomes of a graduated management protocol from therapy to arthroscopy for adolescents presenting with hip pain and an associated acetabular tear. Thirty-seven hips with an MRI confirmed labral tear were prospectively enrolled in a graduated management protocol created for adolescents. The protocol began with activity modification and focused physical therapy. Patients with persistent symptoms were offered an intraarticular corticosteroid injection. Those with continued symptoms were treated with arthroscopic surgery. The modified Harris hip score (mHHS) and nonarthritic hip score (NAHS) were recorded at the initial visit. Patients were contacted by telephone at 1, 2, and 5 years from enrollment for repeat assessment with mHHS and NAHS. At presentation, the mean mHHS and NAHS for the entire cohort was 66.4  ±  11.4 and 70.2  ±  12.6, and these values improved significantly to 89.3  ±  10.6 and 87.0  ±  11.4 at a mean follow-up of 35.7  ±  18.3 months (range 11.7-64.4 months). Forty-two percent of hips were managed with physical therapy and activity modifications alone, 28% of hips progressed to a steroid injection but did not require surgery, and 31% required arthroscopic intervention. Seventy-three percent of hips treated with activity modification alone, 80% treated with an injection, and 82% of hips treated with arthroscopic repair met the minimal clinically significant difference (MCID) (P = 0.859). At an average of 36 months follow-up, the majority (78%) of adolescent patients with an acetabular labral tear will achieve the MCID utilizing a graduated management protocol.

Risk of Infection in Knee Arthroscopy Patients Undergoing Corticosteroid Injections in the Perioperative Period

Background:

Recent evidence suggests that there may be an increased risk of infection for patients undergoing a corticosteroid injection before, during, or after knee arthroscopy.

Purpose:

To systematically review the literature to evaluate the risk of postoperative infection in patients undergoing intra-articular corticosteroid injections (CSI) before, during, or after knee arthroscopy.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed by searching the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases to identify studies that evaluated the rate of postoperative infection in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy who received an intra-articular CSI during the perioperative period. The search phrase used was “knee AND arthroscopy AND injection AND (infection OR revision).” A subanalysis was also performed to analyze infection rates based on the timing of the corticosteroid injection in relation to arthroscopy.

Results:

Four studies met the inclusion criteria, representing 11,925 patients undergoing knee arthroscopy with an intra-articular CSI administered during the perioperative period (mean follow-up, 5.3 months) and 247,329 patients without a corticosteroid injection during the perioperative period (mean follow-up, 5.9 months). Patients who received an injection experienced a statistically significantly higher rate of postoperative infection (2.2%) when compared with patients who did not receive an injection (1.1%; P < .001). When analyzed by the timing of the injection, patients receiving an injection preoperatively or intraoperatively experienced a statistically significantly higher rate of postoperative infection (3% and 2.6%, respectively) when compared with patients receiving an injection postoperatively (1.4%; P = .001 for both).

Conclusion:

Patients undergoing knee arthroscopy who receive an intra-articular CSI during the perioperative period can be expected to experience significantly higher postoperative infection rates when compared with patients not receiving an injection. Furthermore, patients receiving a corticosteroid injection pre- or intraoperatively may experience significantly higher rates of postoperative infection when compared with patients receiving an injection postoperatively.

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.

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 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.

Injectable Corticosteroids in Sport

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature guiding all aspects of the use of injectable corticosteroids for painful musculoskeletal conditions, with a focus on the treatment of athletes.

DATA SOURCES

An extensive search of the literature was completed including search terms of corticosteroid, steroid, athlete, and injection, among others. Additional articles were used after being identified from previously reviewed articles.

MAIN RESULTS

Injections of corticosteroids for a variety of painful conditions of the extremities and the axial spine have been described. Numerous minor and major complications have been reported, including those with a high degree of morbidity. There is a dearth of published research on the use of corticosteroid injections in athletes, with most of the research on this topic focused on older, nonathlete populations. Generally, these injections are well tolerated and can provide short-term pain improvement with little or no long-term benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroid injections should be used cautiously in athletes and only after a full consideration of the pharmacology, pathogenesis of disease, potential benefits, complications, factors specific to the athlete, and rules of athletic governing bodies. Corticosteroid injections are just one component of a comprehensive rehabilitation plan available to the physician providing care to athletes.