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
Lingua
Download Download Download
Scaricare
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citare
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Preferiti
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Lingua
Download Download Download
Scaricare
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citare
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Preferiti
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.


Dettagli sul finanziamento della pubblicazione +
Finanziamento:
Industry funded
Sponsor:
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)
Conflitti:
None disclosed

Rischio di pregiudizio

8/10

Criteri di segnalazione

17/20

Indice di fragilità

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)?

Sì = 1

Incerto = 0,5

Non rilevante = 0

No = 0

La valutazione dei criteri di segnalazione valuta la trasparenza con cui gli autori riportano le caratteristiche metodologiche e sperimentali dello studio all'interno della pubblicazione. La valutazione è suddivisa in cinque categorie che vengono presentate di seguito.

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

L'Indice di Fragilità è uno strumento che aiuta l'interpretazione dei risultati significativi, fornendo una misura della forza di un risultato. L'Indice di Fragilità rappresenta il numero di eventi consecutivi che devono essere aggiunti a un risultato dicotomico per rendere il risultato non più significativo. Un numero piccolo rappresenta un risultato più debole, mentre un numero grande rappresenta un risultato più forte.

Perché questo studio era necessario ora?

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.

Qual era la domanda di ricerca principale?

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?

Caratteristiche dello studio +
Population:
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
Intervention:
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)
Comparison:
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)
Outcomes:
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.
Methods:
RCT, Assessor-blind, Patient-blind, Multicenter (7 centers), Prospective
Time:
Outcomes were assessed at 1 hour, 1 week, and 3 weeks post-injection
Quali erano i risultati importanti?
  • 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.
Che cosa devo ricordare di più?

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.

Come influenzerà l'assistenza ai miei pazienti?

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.

DISCLAIMER

Il contenuto di questa pagina è solo a scopo informativo e non intende sostituire la consulenza, la diagnosi o il trattamento medico professionale. Se ha bisogno di cure mediche, si rivolga sempre al suo medico o al pronto soccorso più vicino. Le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista espressi dalle persone sui contenuti presenti in questa pagina non riflettono le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista di OrthoEvidence.

0 di 4 articoli mensili GRATUITI sbloccati
Ha raggiunto il suo limite di 4 visualizzazioni di articoli gratuiti questo mese

Accesso a OrthoEvidence a soli 1,99 dollari a settimana.

Rimanga in contatto con le ultime prove. Può disdire in qualsiasi momento.
  • Valutazioni critiche dei più recenti studi randomizzati controllati ad alto impatto e delle revisioni sistematiche in ortopedia.
  • Accesso ai contenuti del podcast OrthoEvidence, tra cui collaborazioni con il Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviste con chirurghi di fama internazionale e tavole rotonde su notizie e argomenti ortopedici.
  • Abbonamento a The Pulse, una newsletter bisettimanale basata sulle evidenze scientifiche, progettata per aiutarla a prendere decisioni cliniche migliori.
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bentornato!
Ha dimenticato la password?
Inizi la sua prova gratuita oggi stesso!

Il suo account sarà affiliato a
e includerà l'accesso gratuito a OrthoEvidence


O
Ha dimenticato la password?

O
Controlli la sua e-mail

Se esiste un account con l'indirizzo e-mail fornito, le verrà inviata un'e-mail di reimpostazione della password. Se non vede l'e-mail, controlli la cartella spam o posta indesiderata.

Per ulteriore assistenza, contatti il nostro team di supporto.

Effettui il login per abilitare questa funzione

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence attivo. Effettui il login o crei un account di prova GRATUITO.

Tradurre il Rapporto ACE

OrthoEvidence utilizza un servizio di traduzione di terze parti per rendere i contenuti accessibili in più lingue. Si prega di notare che, sebbene venga fatto ogni sforzo per garantire l'accuratezza, le traduzioni potrebbero non essere sempre perfette.

Come citare questo documento 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

Copiare la citazione
Effettui il login per abilitare questa funzione

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence attivo. Effettui il login o crei un account di prova GRATUITO.

Funzionalità per i membri Premium

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence Premium.

Condividi questo articolo ACE Report