ACE Report Cover
Similar efficacy between intra- and periarticular injections for acromioclavicular joint
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descargar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
SHOULDER & ELBOW
Similar efficacy between intra- and periarticular injections for acromioclavicular joint .
Verified
This report has been verified by one or more authors of the original publication.

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2014;2(7):26 Arthroscopy. 2013 Dec;29(12):1903-10. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.08.027. Epub 2013 Oct 18

101 patients (106 shoulders) were randomized to investigate the efficacy of either an intra-articular injection or periarticular injection in the treatment of symptomatic acromioclavicular joints. Outcome measurements of pain and function were assessed up to 3 weeks post-injection. The results indicated that either injection provided similar, significant improvements in pain and function. There was no difference observed between groups, with the exception that less pain during the crossover arm test (COAT) was reported among participants treated with an intra-articular injection.


Detalles de la financiación de la publicación +
Financiación:
Industry funded
Patrocinador:
Vienna Medical School (non-industry); Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of the City of Vienna (non-industry), Gebro Pharma (industry); Merck, Sharp & Dohme (industry)
Conflictos:
None disclosed

Riesgo de sesgo

8/10

Criterios de información

17/20

Índice de fragilidad

N/A

Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?

Was allocation adequately concealed?

Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?

Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?

Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?

Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?

Sí = 1

Incierto = 0,5

No relevante = 0

No = 0

La evaluación de los criterios de información evalúa la transparencia con la que los autores informan de las características metodológicas y del ensayo dentro de la publicación. La evaluación se divide en cinco categorías que se presentan a continuación.

4/4

Aleatorización

3/4

Medición de resultados

4/4

Inclusión / exclusión

2/4

Descripción de la terapia

4/4

Estadísticas

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

El Índice de Fragilidad es una herramienta que ayuda en la interpretación de hallazgos significativos, proporcionando una medida de fuerza para un resultado. El Índice de Fragilidad representa el número de eventos consecutivos que es necesario añadir a un resultado dicotómico para que el hallazgo deje de ser significativo. Un número pequeño representa un hallazgo más débil y un número grande un hallazgo más fuerte.

¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?

Symptomatic acromioclavicular joints represent one of the most common presentations of shoulder pain and discomfort. Typically, injections of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic into the intra-articular space are used in acute cases where contraindications are absent. Despite easy localization of the joint, misinjection into the periarticular space is not uncommon. To improve accuracy of the injection, ultrasound guidance can be employed. However, there has been debate about whether the added practice of ultrasonographic guidance for injections is necessary to elicit clinically relevant effects.

¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?

Is there a clinically relevant benefit of injections to the intra-articular space versus periarticular space in treatment of symptomatic acromioclavicular joints, measured up to 3 weeks following injection?

Características del estudio +
Población:
101 patients (106 shoulders) with a symptomatic acromioclavicular (AC) joint, defined as pain at the AC joint above 4 on a visual analog scale (0-10) for more than 4 weeks
Intervención:
Intraarticular injection: Patients were treated with an ultrasound-guided injection of lidocaine hydrochloride (Gebro Pharma) and 1mL of betamethasone (SP Labo) into the intra-articular space using a ventral approach (Mean age: 53.92 (+/- 13.80)) (n=53 shoulders)
Comparación:
Periarticular injection: Patients were treated with an ultrasound-guided injection of lidocaine hydrochloride (Gebro Pharma) and 1mL of betamethasone (SP Labo) periarticularly (Mean age: 52.34 (+/- 11.89)) (n=53 shoulders)
Resultados:
A visual analog scale was used to assess pain experienced under local pressure (VAS-p) and at night (VAS-n). The Constant-Murley Score (CMS) was used to assess functional outcome. The Crossover Arm Test (COAT) was another measure of pain, with (-) denoting no pain, and (+)-(+++) increasing intensity of pain.
Métodos:
RCT, Assessor-blind, Patient-blind, Multicenter (7 centers), Prospective
Tiempo:
Outcomes were assessed at 1 hour, 1 week, and 3 weeks post-injection
¿Cuáles fueron los hallazgos importantes?
  • Injection into either location (intra-articular and periarticular) was associated with highly statistically significant improvement in all outcome measures (P<0.0001).
  • The CMS for the entire study population increased from 54.54 (SD 16.32) to 73.33 (SD 17.24) at the 3 week follow-up. The difference between groups was not significant (P=0.2408). Factors of age and height had a significant effect on reduction of score.
  • Mean decrease in VAS-p scores for the study population was from 5.76 (SD 2.00) to 2.68 (SD 2.34) after 3 weeks, with no significant differences between groups (P=0.608). Factors of height and previous trauma had a significant effect on score. A 1-cm decrease in height was associated with a mean 0.06-point increase (95%CI 0.02, 0.09; P=0.0007) on the VAS-p. Lower scores were observed for patients who had previous shoulder trauma compared to patients with no trauma in their history.
  • VAS-n scores improved in the study population from 5.22 (SD 2.27) to 2.42 (SD 2.31) after 3 weeks, without significant difference between treatment groups.
  • In the intra-articular group, COAT values decreased from 5.27 (SD 2.35) at baseline to 2.24 (SD 2.25) after 3 weeks. In the periarticular group, COAT scores decreased from 5.18 (SD 2.21) at baseline to 2.61 (SD 2.37) after 3 weeks. The decrease on the COAT was observed to be significantly greater in the intra-articular group compared to periarticular group (P=0.168). A 1-cm decrease in height was associated with a 0.02-point decrease (95%CI 0.01, 0.03; P=0.0186) in COAT score, indicating shorter patients had less pain on the COAT.
  • Five adverse events were recorded; 2 in the intra-articular group and 3 in the perarticular group. These were local hematoma (3 cases), increased pain (1 case), and reddening at the puncture area (1 case). All resolved without additional intervention.
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?

Intra-articular and periarticular injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic produced similar, significant improvements in pain and function after 3 weeks among patients with symptomatic acromioclavicular joint. The only difference displayed between groups was that pain during the crossover arm test was significantly lower in patients who were treated with an intra-articular injection.

¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?

The results of this study illustrate that intra-articular and periarticular injections appear to have similar efficacy in alleviating a symptomatic acromioclavicular joint. There has been suggestion that cartilage damage can potentially occur through intra-articular injections, triggering the development of osteoarthritis. As the follow-up period of this study was not adequate in determining the potential increase in osteoarthritis development from intra-articular injections, future research should be conducted to study this potential difference in the outcome of injection location.

DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD

El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.

0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
Ha alcanzado su límite de vistas de 4 artículos gratuitos este mes

Acceda a OrtoEvidencia por tan sólo 1,99 $ a la semana.

Manténgase conectado con las últimas pruebas. Cancele en cualquier momento.
  • Valoraciones críticas de los últimos ensayos controlados aleatorizados de gran impacto y revisiones sistemáticas en ortopedia
  • Acceso al contenido del podcast OrthoEvidence, que incluye colaboraciones con el Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, entrevistas con cirujanos reconocidos internacionalmente y mesas redondas sobre noticias y temas ortopédicos
  • Suscripción a The Pulse, un boletín quincenal basado en la evidencia y diseñado para ayudarle a tomar mejores decisiones clínicas
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bienvenido
¿Ha olvidado su contraseña?
Comience hoy mismo su prueba GRATUITA

Su cuenta estará afiliada a
e incluye acceso gratuito a OrthoEvidence


O
¿Olvidó su contraseña?

O
Compruebe su correo electrónico

Si existe una cuenta con la dirección de correo electrónico proporcionada, se le enviará un correo electrónico para restablecer la contraseña. Si no ve el correo electrónico, compruebe su carpeta de correo no deseado o spam.

Si necesita más ayuda póngase en contacto con nuestro equipo de asistencia.

Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Traducir Informe ACE

OrthoEvidence utiliza un servicio de traducción de terceros para que el contenido sea accesible en varios idiomas. Tenga en cuenta que, aunque se hace todo lo posible para garantizar la exactitud, las traducciones no siempre son perfectas.

Cómo citar esto ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Similar efficacy between intra- and periarticular injections for acromioclavicular joint. OE Journal. 2014;2(7):26. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/similar-efficacy-between-intra-and-periarticular-injections-for-acromioclavicular-joint

Copiar cita
Inicie sesión para activar esta función

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta activa de OrthoEvidence. Por favor, inicie sesión o cree una cuenta de prueba GRATUITA.

Función de miembro Premium

Para acceder a esta función, debe iniciar sesión en una cuenta Premium de OrthoEvidence.

Compartir ACE Report