A randomised controlled trial of the reciprocating syringe in arthrocentesis

Optimizing the anti-inflammatory strategies in (osteo)arthritis: local or systemic?

Arthritis is affecting millions of people globally, involvement and distribution depending on the type of arthritis. The most common arthritic conditions are osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Despite the pathogeneses being fundamentally different, both joint diseases share the same need for local treatment of synovitis. No current treatment can stop the progression of OA. Local articulate treatment including glucocorticoid (GC) injections, radiosynoviorthesis (RSO) and surgical synovectomy are the only options to relieve pain and temporally improve movability before surgical intervention. For RA, despite effective systemic treatments, similarly need for local articulate treatment is still present, especially early in the disease, but also in case of recurrent episodes of disease flare. Current evidence supports local GC injection as first line treatment for persistent synovitis in a single or a few joints. RSO provides an evident and effective alternative for GC refractory synovitis, especially in early RA. Surgical synovectomy is an invasive alternative, but with less documented efficacy. Whether one unsuccessful intraarticular GC injection is enough to change of mode of action for local treatment is still unclear and needs to be further investigated. In conclusion persistent single joint synovitis in OA and RA is well treated with local treatment. Intra-articular GC injection is considered as first line of treatment, but RSO provides an additional treatment alternative with less side effects and better evidence of efficacy than surgical synovectomy.

To aspirate or not to aspirate? Considerations for the COVID-19 vaccines

Syringe aspiration when vaccinating intramuscularly was not recommended before the pandemic due to the lack of conclusive evidence that it provides any benefit. However, in vivo evidence suggests that intravenous injection of mRNA vaccine can potentially lead to myocarditis, while introducing adenoviral vector to bloodstream can possibly result in thrombocytopenia and coagulopathy. These rare reactions were recorded in humans following the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines. Although the syringe aspiration may increase the level of pain at the injection site, it represents a simple technique to decrease the risk of vaccine introduction into the vascular system and potentially decrease the risk of severe reactions to mRNA and adenoviral vaccines. We are of the opinion that this cannot be disregarded if one considers that the COVID-19 vaccines will continue to be administrated globally in the form of initial and booster doses. Therefore, the aspiration when giving mRNA and adenoviral vaccines appears to be fully in line with the precautionary principle.

Aspiration in injections: should we continue or abandon the practice?

Aspiration during any kind of injection is meant to ensure that the needle tip is at the desired location during this blind procedure. While aspiration appears to be a simple procedure, it has generated a lot of controversy concerning the perceived benefits and indications. Advocates and opponents of aspiration both make logically sound claims. However, due to scarcity of available data, there is no evidence that this procedure is truly beneficial or unwarranted. Keeping in view the huge number of injections given worldwide, it is important that we draw attention to key questions regarding aspiration that, up till now, remain unanswered. In this review, we have attempted to gather and present literature on aspiration both from published and non-published sources in order to provide not only an exhaustive review of the subject, but also a starting point for further studies on more specific areas requiring clarification. A literature review was conducted using the US National Institute of Health’s PubMed service (including Medline), Google Scholar and Scopus. Guidelines provided by the World Health Organization, Safe Injection Global Network, International Council of Nursing, Center for Disease Control, US Federal Drug Agency, UK National Health Services, British Medical Association, Europe Nursing and Midwifery Council, Public Health Agency Canada, Pakistan Medical Association and International Organization of Standardization recommendations 7886 parts 1-4 for sterile hypodermics were reviewed for relevant information. In addition, curricula of several medical/nursing schools from India, Nigeria and Pakistan, the US pharmacopeia Data from the WHO Program for International Drug Monitoring network in regard to adverse events as a result of not aspirating prior to injection delivery were reviewed. Curricula of selected major medical/nursing schools in India, Nigeria and Pakistan, national therapeutic formularies, product inserts of most commonly used drugs and other possible sources of information regarding aspiration and injections were consulted as well.

How to perform local soft-tissue glucocorticoid injections?

Inflammation of periarticular soft-tissue structures such as tendons, tendon sheaths, entheses, bursae, ligaments and fasciae is the hallmark of many inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but inflammation or rather irritation of these structures also occurs in the absence of an underlying rheumatic disease. In both these primary and secondary soft-tissue lesions, local glucocorticoid injection often is beneficial, although evidence in the literature is limited. This chapter reviews local injection therapy for these lesions and for nerve compression syndromes.

New device technologies for subcutaneous fat biopsy

PURPOSE

Subcutaneous fat biopsy is useful for the evaluation of amyloidosis, environmental contaminants, lipid metabolism, genetic studies and diabetes research. The present study examined new technologies for fat biopsy.

METHODS

Subcutaneous fat biopsy in 10 high-risk individuals was randomized to (i) a 10 ml reciprocating procedure device (RPD) mechanical syringe or (ii) a 60 ml vacuum syringe. Outcome measures included pain by the 10 cm Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAS), adequacy of biopsied tissue, complications and diagnosis. The operator's ability to control syringes was quantitatively measured by the linear displacement method.

RESULTS

Both syringes permitted facile aspiration of subcutaneous fat with adequate sample without complications. The mechanical and the vacuum syringes enhanced control of the needle compared to conventional syringes, reducing unintended forward penetration by 75% (3.6 ± 0.5 mm) and 87% (12.0 ± 1.4 mm), respectively (p < 0.0001). Free adipose cells were obtained in abundance as well as columnar biopsies containing intact blood vessels and connective tissue septa permitting precise microhistological examination. One case of primary AL amyloidosis (κ light chain disease) was diagnosed in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous fat biopsy by needle aspiration can be facilely achieved with new aspiration syringe technologies with improved needle control and enhanced patient safety.

Does ultrasound guidance improve the outcomes of arthrocentesis and corticosteroid injection of the knee?

OBJECTIVE

The present randomized controlled trial compared arthrocentesis of the effusive knee followed by corticosteroid injection performed by the conventional anatomic landmark palpation-guided technique to the same procedure performed with ultrasound (US) needle guidance.

METHODS

Sixty-four palpably effusive knees were randomized to (i) palpation-guided arthrocentesis with a conventional 20-mL syringe (22 knees), (ii) US-guided arthrocentesis with a 25-mL reciprocating procedure device (RPD) mechanical aspirating syringe (22 knees), or (iii) US-guided arthrocentesis with a 60-mL automatic aspirating syringe (20 knees). The one-needle two-syringe technique was used. Outcome measures included patient pain by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain (0-10 cm), the proportion of diagnostic samples, synovial fluid volume yield, complications, and therapeutic outcome at 2 weeks.

RESULTS

Sonographic guidance resulted in 48% less procedural pan (VAS; palpation-guided: 5.8 ± 3.0 cm, US-guided: 3.0 ± 2.8 cm, p < 0.001), 183% increased aspirated synovial fluid volumes (palpation-guided: 12 ± 10 mL, US-guided: 34 ± 25 mL, p < 0.0001), and improved outcomes at 2 weeks (VAS; palpation-guided: 2.8 ± 2.4 cm, US-guided: 1.5 ± 1.9 cm, p = 0.034). Outcomes of sonographic guidance with the mechanical syringe and automatic syringe were comparable in all outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

US-guided arthrocentesis and injection of the knee are superior to anatomic landmark palpation-guided arthrocentesis, resulting in significantly less procedural pain, improved arthrocentesis success, greater synovial fluid yield, more complete joint decompression, and improved clinical outcomes.

Safety syringes and anti-needlestick devices in orthopaedic surgery

BACKGROUND

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery (AAOS), The Joint Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act encourage the integration of safety-engineered devices to prevent needlestick injuries to health-care workers and patients. We hypothesized that safety syringes and needles could be used in outpatient orthopaedic injection and aspiration procedures.

METHODS

The study investigated the orthopaedic uses and procedural idiosyncrasies of safety-engineered devices, including (1) four safety needles (Eclipse, SafetyGlide, SurGuard, and Magellan), (2) a mechanical safety syringe (RPD), (3) two automatic retractable syringes (Integra, VanishPoint), (4) three manual retractable syringes (Procedur-SF, Baksnap, Invirosnap), and (5) three shielded syringes (Safety-Lok, Monoject, and Digitally Activated Shielded [DAS] Syringe). The devices were first tested ex vivo, and then 1300 devices were used for 425 subjects undergoing outpatient arthrocentesis, intra-articular injections, local anesthesia, aspiration biopsy, and ultrasound-guided procedures.

RESULTS

During the clinical observation, there were no accidental needlesticks (0 needlesticks per 1300 devices). Safety needles could be successfully used on a Luer syringe but were limited to ≤1.5 in (≤3.81 cm) in length and the shield could interfere with sonography. The mechanical safety syringes functioned well in all orthopaedic procedures. Automatic retractable syringes were too small for arthrocentesis of the knee, and the plunger blew out and prematurely collapsed with high-pressure injections. The manual retractable syringes and shielded syringes could be used with conventional needles for most orthopaedic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The most effective and reliable safety devices for orthopaedic syringe procedures are shielded safety needles, mechanical syringes, manual retractable syringes, and shielded syringes, but not automatic retractable syringes. Even when adopting safety-engineered devices for an orthopaedic clinic, conventional syringes larger than 20 mL and conventional needles longer than 1.5 in (3.8 cm) are necessary.

The highly accurate anteriolateral portal for injecting the knee

Background

The extended knee lateral midpatellar portal for intraarticular injection of the knee is accurate but is not practical for all patients. We hypothesized that a modified anteriolateral portal where the synovial membrane of the medial femoral condyle is the target would be highly accurate and effective for intraarticular injection of the knee.

Methods

83 subjects with non-effusive osteoarthritis of the knee were randomized to intraarticular injection using the modified anteriolateral bent knee versus the standard lateral midpatellar portal. After hydrodissection of the synovial membrane with lidocaine using a mechanical syringe (reciprocating procedure device), 80 mg of triamcinolone acetonide were injected into the knee with a 2.0-in (5.1-cm) 21-gauge needle. Baseline pain, procedural pain, and pain at outcome (2 weeks and 6 months) were determined with the 10 cm Visual Analogue Pain Score (VAS). The accuracy of needle placement was determined by sonographic imaging.

Results

The lateral midpatellar and anteriolateral portals resulted in equivalent clinical outcomes including procedural pain (VAS midpatellar: 4.6 ± 3.1 cm; anteriolateral: 4.8 ± 3.2 cm; p = 0.77), pain at outcome (VAS midpatellar: 2.6 ± 2.8 cm; anteriolateral: 1.7 ± 2.3 cm; p = 0.11), responders (midpatellar: 45%; anteriolateral: 56%; p = 0.33), duration of therapeutic effect (midpatellar: 3.9 ± 2.4 months; anteriolateral: 4.1 ± 2.2 months; p = 0.69), and time to next procedure (midpatellar: 7.3 ± 3.3 months; anteriolateral: 7.7 ± 3.7 months; p = 0.71). The anteriolateral portal was 97% accurate by real-time ultrasound imaging.

Conclusion

The modified anteriolateral bent knee portal is an effective, accurate, and equivalent alternative to the standard lateral midpatellar portal for intraarticular injection of the knee.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00651625

The outcomes and cost-effectiveness of intraarticular injection of the rheumatoid knee

Although intraarticular injections are important to the management of rheumatoid arthritis, there are few studies regarding the cost-effectiveness of alternative injection techniques. This randomized controlled study addressed the cost-effectiveness of two different low-cost, anatomic landmark palpation-directed intraarticular injection techniques. Ninety-six symptomatic rheumatoid knees were randomized to two different low-cost, palpation-guided intraarticular injection techniques utilizing (1) a conventional syringe or (2) a mechanical syringe, the RPD (the reciprocating procedure device). Three milliliters of 1% lidocaine were used to anesthetize the synovial membrane, followed by arthrocentesis and hydrodissection, and injection of 80 mg of triamcinolone acetonide utilizing the one-needle two-syringe technique. Baseline pain, procedural pain, aspirated fluid volume, pain at outcome (2 weeks and 6 months), responders, reinjection rates, cost/patient/year, and cost/responder/year were determined. Pain was measured with the 10 cm Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAS). Both techniques significantly reduced pain scores at outcome from baseline (P < 0.001). The mechanical syringe technique resulted in a greater volume of aspirated fluid (P < 0.01), a 38% reduction in procedural pain (P < 0.001), a 24% reduction in pain scores at outcome (P < 0.03), an increase in the responder rate (P < 0.025), 33% increase in the time to next injection (P < 0.001), 23% ($35 US) reduction in cost/patient/year for a patient treated in a physician office (P < 0.001), 24% reduction ($26 US) in cost/patient/year for a hospital outpatient (P < 0.001), and 51% ($151 US) reduction in cost/responder/year (P < 0.001). The outcomes and cost-effectiveness of intraarticular injection of the rheumatoid knee can be improved significantly with low-cost alternations in technique.

Image-directed fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the thyroid with safety-engineered devices

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to integrate safety-engineered devices into outpatient fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy of the thyroid in an interventional radiology practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The practice center is a tertiary referral center for image-directed FNA thyroid biopsies in difficult patients referred by the primary care physician, endocrinologist, or otolaryngologist. As a departmental quality of care and safety improvement program, we instituted integration of safety devices into our thyroid biopsy procedures and determined the effect on outcome (procedural pain, diagnostic biopsies, inadequate samples, complications, needlesticks to operator, and physician satisfaction) before institution of safety devices (54 patients) and after institution of safety device implementation (56 patients). Safety devices included a patient safety technology-the mechanical aspirating syringe (reciprocating procedure device), and a health care worker safety technology (antineedlestick safety needle).

RESULTS

FNA of thyroid could be readily performed with the safety devices. Safety-engineered devices resulted in a 49% reduction in procedural pain scores (P < 0.0001), a 56% reduction in significant pain (P < 0.002), a 21% increase in operator satisfaction (P < 0.0001), and a 5% increase in diagnostic specimens (P = 0.5). No needlesticks to health care workers or patient injuries occurred during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Safety-engineered devices to improve both patient and health care worker safety can be successfully integrated into diagnostic FNA of the thyroid while maintaining outcomes and improving safety.

Integration of patient safety technologies into sclerotherapy for varicose veins

The American College of Surgeons, the Joint Commission, the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration all direct surgical departments, including vascular surgeons who supply sclerotherapy services, to develop formal mechanisms to improve the safety of the patient and health care worker (HCW), including integration of new safety technologies. The purpose of the present study was to identify and evaluate new safety technologies for outpatient sclerotherapy for chronic venous disease. Using national resources for patient safety and literature review, the following safety technologies were identified: (1) a safety needle to reduce inadvertent needlesticks to workers, and (2) the reciprocating procedure device (RPD) to reduce iatrogenic injuries to patients. Both devices were evaluated in the clinic, and physician responses were determined. Although the safety sheath of the needle was somewhat bulky and could interfere with the ultrasound transducer, sclerotherapy could be performed with it. The RPD safety device required instruction to show how the RPD functioned ("push-push" to aspirate-inject with the RPD rather than the usual "push-pull" with the conventional syringe), but the RPD permitted better needle control and more precise injections. The RPD was well accepted by physicians who found it to be convenient, safer, and less painful. Subsequently, the involved services successfully integrated these safety technologies into their routine clinical practices. As recommended by the Joint Commission, safety technologies can be successfully evaluated and introduced into the clinic to improve patient and HCW safety during physician-performed syringe and needle procedures, including sclerotherapy.

Integration of new safety technologies for needle aspiration of breast cysts

INTRODUCTION

National and international regulatory agencies and professional societies mandate systematic improvements in both the safety of patients and heath care workers (HCW), including the integration of safety technologies into the procedures of obstetrics and gynecology (Ob-Gyn).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using national resources for patient safety and literature review, these safety technologies were identified: (1) a safety needle to reduce needle sticks to HCW, and (2) the reciprocating procedure device (RPD) to reduce injuries to patients. These technologies were introduced in a trial fashion into routine breast cyst aspiration, and physician responses were determined.

RESULTS

The safety needle presented a number of difficulties associated with the safety sheath, but could be used efficiently for breast cyst aspiration. The RPD safety device functioned well for breast aspiration procedures and was well accepted by physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

New safety technologies can be successfully evaluated and introduced into the clinic to improve patient and HCW safety during outpatient breast procedures. Since these technologies have been demonstrated to decrease injuries to patients and HCW by 60-70%, serious efforts should be undertaken to systematically integrate safety technologies into the routine practice, including aspiration of breast cysts.

Reduced Pain of Intraarticular Hyaluronate Injection With the Reciprocating Procedure Device

BACKGROUND

Greater than 50% of patients report significant pain with intraarticular injection of hyaluronate. The reciprocating procedure device (RPD), also known the reciprocating syringe, has 2 plungers that reciprocate with each other, permitting one-handed operation. The RPD increases physician control of the needle and is proposed to reduce patient pain during syringe procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To determine in a randomized controlled trial whether the RPD induces less pain than the traditional syringe during intraarticular hyaluronate therapy for the knee.

METHODS

Eighty intraarticular injection procedures of the knee were randomized to either the conventional syringe or the RPD using hyaluronate sodium derivative (Hylan G-F-20). Outcome measures included physician's estimate of pain, patient pain (Visual Analogue Pain Scale [VAPS]), procedure duration, operator satisfaction, complications, and response to the injected medication.

RESULTS

Patients reported 85% more pain than physicians estimated. Fifty-one percent (19/37) of subjects experienced moderate to severe pain with the conventional syringe, while only 14% (6/43) experienced pain with the RPD. The RPD reduced pain scores (RPD VAPS score: 2.12 +/- 2.15; conventional syringe VAPS score: 4.22 +/- 3.25; P < 0.001), reduced procedure time (RPD: 1.34 +/- 1.09, conventional syringe: 1.90 +/- 1.35 minutes, P < 0.001), and improved physician satisfaction (RPD VASS Score: 9.02 +/- 0.80, conventional syringe 5.69 +/- 1.33, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients have considerably more pain with intraarticular needle introduction and injectable hyaluronate therapy than physicians estimate. The RPD reduces patient pain, reduces procedure time, and improves needle introduction compared with the conventional syringe for hyaluronate injection therapy for the knee.

Control and Performance Characteristics of Eight Different Suction Biopsy Devices

PURPOSE

To determine the control and performance characteristics of eight different suction biopsy devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Physician control of the syringe and needle was measured precisely with the validated linear displacement method during the aspiration phase and during five biopsy passes. The visual analog scale was used to measure operator difficulty in the following domains: (i) attachment to the needle, (ii) generation of vacuum, (iii) detection of loss of vacuum, (iv) release of the vacuum, and (v) clearing of the sample from the needle.

RESULTS

Performance in various phases of the biopsy procedure varied widely among the biopsy devices tested. Unintended forward penetration (ie, loss of control in the forward direction) was significant with the reverse aspiration syringe (31.5 +/- 1.7 mm), three-ringed control syringe (25.4 +/- 4.1 mm), BioSuc-C7 syringe (28.3 +/- 1.9 mm), conventional syringe with a plunger lock (6.1 +/- 1.5 mm), syringe pistol (9.2 +/- 2.4 mm), and conventional syringe (3.8 +/- 2.9 mm) but was significantly less for the reciprocating procedure device (RPD; 0.7 +/- 0.7 mm; P </= .001) and RPD syringe holder (0.6 +/- 0.6 mm; P </= .001). The mean performance rankings were the best for the RPD (3.42 +/- 2.57) and RPD syringe holder (4.29 +/- 2.50) and worst for the conventional syringe (6.14 +/- 2.67; P </= .001) and conventional syringe with a plunger lock (6.86 +/- 3.80; P </= .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Each of the suction biopsy devices has unique advantages and disadvantages. Suction biopsy devices with the least favorable overall performance were the conventional syringe and the conventional syringe with a plunger lock. The highest overall performance was seen with the RPD and RPD syringe holder.