Intra-articular and soft tissue injections: a survey of current practice

Local and Systemic Side Effects of Corticosteroid Injections for Musculoskeletal Indications

Corticosteroid injections can be associated with a range of potential side effects, which may be classified as local or systemic and further stratified as immediate or delayed in onset. Radiologists performing image-guided musculoskeletal injections should recognize the potential side effects of corticosteroid medication when counseling patients before injection and consider such side effects in planning individual injections. This Review summarizes the available evidence regarding the local and systemic side effects of corticosteroid injections performed for musculoskeletal indications. Local side effects include postinjection flare, skin hypopigmentation and atrophy, infection, tendon rupture, accelerated progression of osteoarthritis, and osseous injury. Systemic side effects include adrenal suppression or insufficiency, facial flushing, hypertension, hyperglycemia, and osteoporosis. Additional targeted counseling is warranted regarding side effects that are specific to certain patient populations (i.e., premenopausal women, patients with diabetes, athletes, and pediatric patients). Corticosteroid injections are contraindicated in the presence of superficial or deep infection, fracture, or a prosthetic joint. Guidelines on the frequency, duration, and maximal lifetime use of corticosteroid injections are currently lacking. Further research is needed regarding the long-term complications of continuous corticosteroid use, particularly with regard to osseous effects.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Popliteus Tendinitis Using the Accessory Portal

Introduction

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of arthroscopic treatment of popliteus tendinitis via an auxiliary extreme lateral approach and to investigate the pathogenesis and treatment of popliteus tendinitis.

Materials and Methods

From 2016 to 2020, arthroscopic popliteus tendon ablation was performed in 15 patients (15 knees) with popliteus tendinitis via an auxiliary extreme lateral approach. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Lysholm knee scoring scale, the Tegner score, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and the visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score at the 24-month follow-up after surgery.

Results

A total of 15 patients (mean age, 51.1 ± 7.1 years) were included. They had a mean body mass index of 23.8 ± 2.1 kg/m². The minimum follow-up period was 24 months. Comparing the postoperative state to the preoperative state, the mean postoperative Lysholm score, Tegner score, and IKDC score improved significantly from 70.0 ± 5.0, 3.0 ± 0.9, and 62.3 ± 5.5 to 89.3 ± 4.2, 4.6 ± 0.61, and 80.5 ± 4.4, respectively (p < 0.01). The preoperative VAS score for pain improved from 6.4 ± 0.5 to 0.9 ± 0.4 (p < 0.01). No patients were lost to follow-up.

Conclusions

Following arthroscopic-assisted treatment, all the patients with popliteus tendinitis achieved satisfactory clinical outcomes in terms of pain relief and improved function.

Level of Evidence

Level IV

Trends in antimicrobial resistance among bacteria causing septic arthritis in adults in a single center: A 15-years retrospective analysis

Septic arthritis (SA) is commonly associated with Staphylococcal or Streptococcal infections. Overtime, there has been a global increase in the distribution of antimicrobial resistance within both Gram-positive bacteria such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Gram-negative bacteria such as extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) positive Enterobacteriacea. The aim of this study was to determine whether this change in epidemiology similarly affected the distribution of resistant pathogens causing SA. The study was conducted at the Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, Israel. All adult patients diagnosed with SA during 2002-2016 were included in the cohort. Antimicrobial resistance trends were examined over three periods: 2002-2009, 2010-2013, and 2014-2016. Of 85 patients with SA, mean age of patients was 66.8 (± 20.3) years, with male predominance (n = 62, 66%). Most SA cases involved native knee joints and more than 85% (n = 80) were acquired in the community. The most common isolates were S. aureus (n = 38, 45%) and beta-hemolytic streptococci (n = 13, 15%). MRSA SA was diagnosed in 8% of all SA cases (n = 7). An increasing, although non-significant trend in MRSA SA was observed during the study period (p = 0.3). Gram-negative infections were uncommon (n = 14). No ESBL-positive or carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriacea were detected. Over a 15-year study period, no significant increase in resistant pathogens causing SA was observed. In the era of antibiotic stewardship, these results strengthen our practice of administering narrow-spectrum antimicrobials empirically for SA. However, our findings cannot be generalized to regions with higher rates of MRSA in the community.

Ultrasound-guided injections in musculo-skeletal system - An overview

Ultrasound guided musculoskeletal injection has a wide range of indication in joint, muscle, tendon, nerve, ganglion and bursa pathologies. These are less invasive procedures and provide desirable results in short duration. Local anesthetics and corticosteroids are the most commonly injected pharmaceuticals. Platelet rich plasma and autologus blood injections have gained popularity in recent past and provide acceptable results. In this article we aim to review the general consideration, indications, technique and pharmaceuticals used in common therapeutic musculoskeletal injections.

Perspectives in ultrasound-guided musculoskeletal interventions

Ultrasonography (USG) is a safe, easily available, and cost-effective modality, which has the additional advantage of being real time for imaging and image-guided interventions of the musculoskeletal system. Musculoskeletal interventions are gaining popularity in sports and rehabilitation for rapid healing of muscle and tendon injuries in professional athletes, healing of chronic tendinopathies, aspiration of joint effusions, periarticular bursae and ganglia, and perineural injections in acute and chronic pain syndromes. This article aims to provide an overview of the spectrum of musculoskeletal interventions that can be done under USG guidance both for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.

A randomised control trial to evaluate the efficacy of autologous blood injection versus local corticosteroid injection for treatment of lateral epicondylitis

OBJECTIVES

Local corticosteroid infiltration is a common practice of treatment for lateral epicondylitis. In recent studies no statistically significant or clinically relevant results in favour of corticosteroid injections were found. The injection of autologous blood has been reported to be effective for both intermediate and long-term outcomes. It is hypothesised that blood contains growth factors, which induce the healing cascade.

METHODS

A total of 60 patients were included in this prospective randomised study: 30 patients received 2 ml autologous blood drawn from contralateral upper limb vein + 1 ml 0.5% bupivacaine, and 30 patients received 2 ml local corticosteroid + 1 ml 0.5% bupivacaine at the lateral epicondyle. Outcome was measured using a pain score and Nirschl staging of lateral epicondylitis. Follow-up was continued for total of six months, with assessment at one week, four weeks, 12 weeks and six months.

RESULTS

The corticosteroid injection group showed a statistically significant decrease in pain compared with autologous blood injection group in both visual analogue scale (VAS) and Nirschl stage at one week (both p < 0.001) and at four weeks (p = 0.002 and p = 0.018, respectively). At the 12-week and six-month follow-up, autologous blood injection group showed statistically significant decrease in pain compared with corticosteroid injection group (12 weeks: VAS p = 0.013 and Nirschl stage p = 0.018; six months: VAS p = 0.006 and Nirschl p = 0.006). At the six-month final follow-up, a total of 14 patients (47%) in the corticosteroid injection group and 27 patients (90%) in autologous blood injection group were completely relieved of pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Autologous blood injection is efficient compared with corticosteroid injection, with less side-effects and minimum recurrence rate.

Prolotherapy versus corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lateral epicondylosis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of prolotherapy versus corticosteroid injection for the treatment of chronic lateral epicondylosis.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized controlled, double-blinded study.

SETTING

Academic, tertiary, outpatient, rehabilitation hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four subjects with clinically determined chronic (ie, lasting 3 months or longer) lateral epicondylosis were recruited. All subjects noted pain intensity levels significant enough to prevent the participation in activities, such as playing racquet sports or lifting heavy objects.

METHODS

Subjects were assigned to receive either prolotherapy or corticosteroid injection for treatment of chronic lateral epicondylosis. Each subject underwent injection at baseline followed by a second injection 1 month later.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Visual analog scale (VAS) self-rating of pain, quadruple visual analog scale (QVAS), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH) were measured at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months' follow-up.

RESULTS

Within each group, the analysis demonstrated statistically significant improvements in both VAS and DASH within the prolotherapy group with significant changes noted from baseline to 3 months (VAS: Δ2.38; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.04-3.71, P = .004 and DASH: Δ19.89; 95% CI 5.73-34.04, P = .01), and baseline to 6 months (VAS: Δ2.63; 95% CI 0.61-4.62, P = .017 and DASH: Δ21.76; 9% CI 7.43-36.09, P = .009) after initial treatment, as well as in the QVAS from baseline to 3 months. The steroid group demonstrated a clinically and statistically significant change for DASH only at both 3-month (Δ13.33; 95% CI 0.68-25.99, P = .04) and 6-month (Δ15.56; 95% CI 1.30-29.81, P = .04) follow-up. Comparison of the subjects completing the study revealed no significant differences between the prolotherapy and the corticosteroid group for change in VAS, QVAS, or DASH, although the study lacked sufficient power to draw conclusions from this finding. Eighty-three percent of the subjects were satisfied with their overall improvement during the course of the study, without significant differences revealed between groups. Aside from injection-associated pain, no adverse reactions were reported. Seventeen subjects completed study protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Both prolotherapy and corticosteroid therapy were generally well tolerated and appeared to provide benefit of long duration. Small sample size precludes determining whether one therapy is superior to the other. Larger, controlled trials appear feasible and warranted on the basis of these findings.

Intra-articular injection and driving advice: a survey of UK rheumatologists' current practice

OBJECTIVE

To determine the current practice of UK rheumatologists regarding driving advice and intra-articular injection. A secondary objective was to clarify legal advice on driving after intra-articular injection.

METHODS

A link to an online questionnaire was sent out via the British Society of Rheumatology (BSR) monthly e-newsletter to all BSR members in January 2010. In addition, we contacted the Medical Defence union (MDU), Medical Protection Society (MPS), Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and insurance companies for statements regarding legal advice.

RESULTS

A total of 134 responses were obtained. These were collected on a web-based database. The majority of forms returned were from consultant rheumatologists. Fifty-six per cent of respondents said that they routinely asked patients about driving prior to joint injection. Seventy-six respondents (57%) considered driving to be an issue when injecting joints. If a patient had driven to clinic, 30% of respondents said that they would inject as normal, 28% opting to inject but ask the patient to wait following injection. Only 12% (16 respondents) said that they would not undertake an injection if the patient was driving. Sixty-one (46%) respondents did not run an injection clinic. Of those who did (71 respondents) 55% pre-warned patients not to drive.

CONCLUSION

There is no clear consensus among rheumatologists as to practice regarding driving following an intra-articular injection. Medico-legally, there is no absolute bar to driving following an intra-articular injection, and guidance points to clinicians' own judgement as to the safety of driving.

Are there risk factors for musculoskeletal procedural pain? A national prospective multicentre study of procedural instantaneous pain and its recall after knee and spine injections

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the risk factors for procedural pain during spinal and joint injections.

METHODS

In this prospective national multicentre study, procedural pain was investigated by rheumatologists who visited four consecutive patients undergoing synovial aspiration and infiltrations of the knee (K), and four consecutive patients undergoing spinal (S) injections. Pain assessments were carried out just before, during, and 48 hours after the procedure.

RESULTS

The 249 rheumatologists enrolled 1350 patients (720 K and 630 S; 64 ± 14 years, 64.6% female). Instantaneous procedure-induced pain was reported in 76.1% of cases, was generally mild (mean 2.6 ± 2.5 on 10) and not different between the two sites. The frequency of procedure-induced pain increased significantly with pain related to the underlying disease and level of anxiety before the procedure. Procedure-induced pain was recalled after 48 hours later by 66.2% of the patients, with an intensity of 2.4 ± 2.6. The recall of procedure-induced pain increased with pain due to the underlying condition, with the intensity of instantaneous procedure-induced pain, with the level of anxiety, but was less frequent if the patient underwent the procedure for the first time. Patients' and physicians' estimates of procedural pain were poorly concordant (kappa coefficient 0.45), physicians tended to overestimate the frequency of pain but to underestimate its intensity.

CONCLUSION

Procedural pain is common, but mild, in patients undergoing musculoskeletal injections. Instantaneous procedural pain and its recall 48 hours later depend principally on the level of underlying pain and anxiety, regardless of the injection site and the analgesic procedure performed.

Ultrasound guided injection of dexamethasone versus placebo for treatment of plantar fasciitis: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Plantar fasciitis is the most commonly reported cause of chronic pain beneath the heel. Management of this condition commonly involves the use of corticosteroid injection in cases where less invasive treatments have failed. However, despite widespread use, only two randomised trials have tested the effect of this treatment in comparison to placebo. These trials currently offer the best available evidence by which to guide clinical practice, though both were limited by methodological issues such as insufficient statistical power. Therefore, the aim of this randomised trial is to compare the effect of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection versus placebo for treatment of plantar fasciitis.

Methods

The trial will be conducted at the La Trobe University Podiatry Clinic and will recruit 80 community-dwelling participants. Diagnostic ultrasound will be used to diagnose plantar fasciitis and participants will be required to meet a range of selection criteria. Participants will be randomly allocated to one of two treatment arms: (i) ultrasound-guided injection of the plantar fascia with 1 mL of 4 mg/mL dexamethasone sodium phosphate (experimental group), or (ii) ultrasound-guided injection of the plantar fascia with 1 mL normal saline (control group). Blinding will be applied to participants and the investigator performing procedures, measuring outcomes and analysing data. Primary outcomes will be pain measured by the Foot Health Status Questionnaire and plantar fascia thickness measured by ultrasound at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. All data analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.

Conclusion

This will be a randomised trial investigating the effect of dexamethasone injection on pre-specified treatment outcomes in people with plantar fasciitis. Within the parameters of this protocol, the trial findings will be used to make evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of corticosteroid injection for treatment of this condition.

Trial Registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. ACTRN12610000239066.

Clean versus sterile technique for common joint injections: a review from the physiatry perspective

Preparation of the skin prior to joint injection varies widely among disciplines and across regional borders. This is likely due to the paucity of literature on the most effective and efficient methods of preparation. There is no standard definition of clean technique prior to joint injection. Review of the available literature suggests that alcohol is effective preparation for the skin prior to most procedures. Surveys of current clinical practice demonstrate that the use of gloves may be favored, but no conclusions can be drawn in regards to whether sterile gloves are required. Clean technique should be defined as use of non-sterile gloves and agents such as alcohol or soap prior to injection. Significant cost savings may be achieved with the consistent use of clean technique for preparation of the skin prior to joint injection. Further study should address the incidence of iatrogenic bacterial arthritis following clean technique versus sterile technique for joint injection.

Effect of needle size and type, reuse of needles, insertion speed, and removal of hair on contamination of joints with tissue debris and hair after arthrocentesis

OBJECTIVE

To assess joint contamination with tissue and hair after arthrocentesis of equine fetlock joints.

STUDY DESIGN

Experimental.

ANIMALS

Limb specimens from 8 equine cadavers.

PROCEDURES

Soft tissues including the joint capsule were harvested from the dorsal aspect of the fetlock joints and mounted on a wooden frame. Needles inserted through the joint tissue preparation were flushed into tissue culture plates that were examined for tissue and hair debris. Variables evaluated were gauge and type of needle (16, 18, 20, and 22 G sharp disposable needles and 20 G disposable spinal needles with stylet), number of times each needle was used (1, 2, 3, 4), length of hair (unclipped, clipped, shaved with razor), and needle insertion speed (fast, slow). Descriptive and statistical evaluations were performed.

RESULTS

Tissue contamination was identified in 1145 of 1260 wells and hair contamination was identified in 384 of 1260 wells. Twenty gauge needles inserted through unclipped hair resulted in the least amount of hair contamination. Compared with 20 G needles with fast insertion 1 time through unclipped hair the odds ratios for contamination with hair were significantly greater for 16 G sharp disposable needles, 20 G spinal needles, clipped hair, shaved hair, and reuse of the needles. Spinal needles inserted through unclipped hair transferred many long hairs into the joint space.

CONCLUSION

Reuse of needles for arthrocentesis should be avoided. Removal of hair is not indicated for arthrocentesis with sharp injection needles but is recommended when using spinal needles with stylets.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Joint contamination with hair and tissue debris will be decreased by specific needle insertion techniques. Decreased contamination of joints may reduce the frequency of joint infections after arthrocentesis.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Intra-articular steroids and splints/rest for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and adults with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Resting or immobilizing a joint to enhance outcomes following intra-articular (IA) steroid injection is generally advocated. This systematic review aimed to determine the efficacy of IA steroid injections and the influence of post-injection rest.

OBJECTIVES

1. Compare IA steroid injections versus no treatment or placebo. 2. Determine the effects of rest following IA steroid injection in rheumatoid or juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL- Issue 4, 2003), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR - Issue 4, 2003), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE - searched 8.1.04), MEDLINE (1966 to August Week 2 2004), EMBASE (1980 to August Week 2 2004) , CINAHL (1982 to December Week 2 2003), Clinical Trials site of the National Institute of Health, (USA - searched 8.1.04), OTseeker (Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence - searched 8.1.04) and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database - searched 8.1.04) were searched. Journals and reference lists were hand searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible were randomised controlled trials of IA steroid injections or of rest following IA steroid injections in rheumatoid or juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Potentially relevant references were evaluated and all data extracted by two independent reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials (n=346) examining IA steroid injection in the knee joint were included. It was not possible to pool data as outcome measures, timing of follow up and the methods of data reporting differed between trials. There was inconclusive conflicting evidence from two trials that walking time was reduced. There was evidence from one moderate quality trial that pain was reduced at 1-day post-injection (0-100 VAS from 28.33 to 13.46; McGill Pain Scale from 8.89 to 3.96) but not at 1 week or 7-12 weeks post-injection. There is some evidence that IA injections improved knee flexion (by 14 degrees) and reduced knee extension lag (by 20 degrees), knee circumference (median reduction = 0.3 cm) and morning stiffness (reduced from 60 mins to 7.6 mins). One trial (n=91) examined the effects of rest following injection in the knee. The rested group achieved significant improvement in pain, stiffness, knee circumference, and walking time when compared with the non-rested group (no point estimates provided). One trial evaluated rest following injection of the wrist (n=117). Relapse rate was higher in the rested group (rest relapse rate = 24/58, no-rest group = 14/59); but there were no differences between the rested and non-rested groups on pain, joint circumference, wrist function, grip strength or ROM.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence to support the use of IA steroid injections and resting a knee following injections but that wrists should not be rested following injections. The included studies involved adult participants so any conclusions can only cautiously applied to children. Further research is required to examine the use and type of rest and the differential responses of different joints following injections.

Joint and soft tissue injections: a survey of general practitioners

OBJECTIVES

To determine the type of joint and soft tissue injections carried out by general practitioners (GPs) in the Bath area and factors affecting activity.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to 360 GPs requesting information on injections carried out during the previous 12 months, referral pathways for injection, barriers to injecting and training.

RESULTS

We received 251 replies. The commonest injections were for tennis elbow, glenohumeral joint, knee, supraspinatus tendonitis and carpal tunnel. The majority of GPs (66.4%) carry out most injections themselves, 26.3% refer to a colleague and 7.3% refer to secondary care. Over half (51%) of all the injections are carried out by 15.6% of the GPs. Factors associated with higher levels of injection activity were: male gender, partnership, more than 10 years' experience, a special interest in rheumatology or orthopaedics and working in a rural or mixed practice. The most important barriers to carrying out injections were lack of practical training, lack of confidence and inability to maintain skills. Most GPs have been trained on models.

CONCLUSIONS

Most GPs carry out some joint and soft tissue injections, but limit themselves to knees, shoulders and elbows. A small highly active group receive referrals from colleagues. Gender and specialist training strongly influence activity. Many, especially female and part-time, GPs find it hard to maintain their skills and confidence. Training targeted at this group, based in practices and using models and other tools, is likely to increase the number of patients receiving timely injections in general practice.

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).

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.

Intra-articular corticosteroid injections in juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Therapeutic intervention with intra-articular steroid injections in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) has evolved from experience with adults with inflammatory joint disease, with the earliest report being published in 1951. The technique has subsequently been introduced into paediatric rheumatology practice, although much of the evidence supporting its use remains anecdotal or based on open, non-controlled studies. This review examines the body of evidence relating to many aspects of treating children with JIA with intra-articular steroids, and is approached from both a medical and a physiotherapy perspective. Where appropriate, important areas for future research are identified and discussed.

Injection therapies for soft-tissue disorders

Local injection therapies are used in the management of a variety of musculoskeletal pain syndromes and include the local infiltration of substances such as corticosteroid and/or anaesthetic, dry needling and neural blockade. Although commonly used, the rationale for their use in many conditions is arguable and evidence of efficacy is often lacking. In this chapter, a number of common 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 documented effects is critically reviewed. Practical suggestions for their utilization in the management of soft-tissue conditions are given and proposals are made for future research in this important area.

A risk-benefit assessment of injections of hyaluronan and its derivatives in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee

Hyaluronan is critical for the homeostasis of the joint as an organ, in part, because it provides the rheological properties (viscosity and elasticity) of the synovial fluid. These properties depend upon both the concentration and the molecular weight of the hyaluronan in the synovial fluid. In osteoarthritis, the hyaluronan is both smaller in size and lower in concentration. Thus, it is rational and physiologically meaningful to treat osteoarthritis with viscosupplementation, i.e. injection of material designed to increase the rheological properties of the synovial fluid. It is important, though, to assess the risks and benefits of such a physiological treatment. There are various products on the market for viscosupplementation. These include hyaluronan preparations of relatively low molecular weight (Hyalgan and ARTZ), a hyaluronan preparation of intermediate molecular weight, but still lower molecular weight than that of the hyaluronan in normal healthy synovial fluid (Orthovisc), and a cross-linked hyaluronan (a hylan) of high molecular weight (Synvisc). The evidence from in vitro and in vivo models of osteoarthritis and from clinical trials to date suggests that efficacy, as would be expected by mechanistic reasoning, depends strongly upon molecular weight. The available evidence indicates that these products differ little in the incidence and severity of adverse events (about 2 to 4%, almost always local swelling, and with no adverse sequelae). All are very well tolerated in comparison to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy, although direct comparisons are few. The only potentially serious adverse event is joint infection, which is rare and directly dependent upon the number of injections, among other factors. No infection has been related to contamination of any of the products. In summary, treatment with low molecular weight preparations of hyaluronan seems to be effective. However, viscosupplementation with hyaluronan preparations may have slightly higher risk and less benefit than viscosupplementation with hylans, because the relatively lower molecular weight hyaluronan preparations require more injections which may incur higher costs and theoretically an increased chance of infection. Viscosupplementation with hylans is clearly effective, and the available evidence suggests that the benefits almost certainly outweigh the risks.

A risk-benefit assessment of intra-articular corticosteroids in rheumatic disorders

The appeal of intra-articular corticosteroid therapy has increased with the growing emphasis on early disease control in rheumatoid disease. The impact on the patient's pain and stiffness is impressive and prompt. This may encourage patient compliance with longer term therapies given to slow the course of the disease. The release of corticosteroid into the circulation also provides some generalised improvement. This can prove helpful during the management of flares of inflammatory disease. There is less evidence to support the use of intra-articular corticosteroids in other inflammatory arthritides, but experience suggests that the benefits are similar. In osteoarthritis the benefits are less certain, but intra-articular therapy may prove important in patients who cannot undergo salvage operative procedures because of intercurrent illness. The benefits of intra-articular corticosteroids may be enhanced by rest after the injection, or by the additional administration of agents such as radio-colloids, rifampicin (rifampin), or osmic acid. Most controlled trial data have been published on knee injections, but other joints can be useful targets for local therapy. The risks are mainly related to the discomfort of the procedure, localised pain post-injection and flushing, but most feared is septic arthritis which probably occurs in about 1 in 10000 injections. Careful aseptic technique is the best protection. Tissue atrophy at the injection site, abnormal uterine bleeding, hypertension and hyperglycaemia rarely cause problems. Osteonecrosis might be as much a problem with uncontrolled painful arthritis as with a joint rendered less symptomatic by corticosteroid injections. Intra-articular corticosteroids form an important part of the management of inflammatory joint disease and might be considered where an inflammatory element occurs in osteoarthritis. They may be used at any stage in the arthritic process, but should be seen as an adjunct to other forms of symptom relief. In patients needing multiple joint injections, systemic therapy should be reviewed to see if better disease control could reduce the need for invasive therapy.