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
言語
Download Download Download
ダウンロード
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
引用
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ お気に入り
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
言語
Download Download Download
ダウンロード
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
引用
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ お気に入り

SHOULDER & ELBOW

Intra-articular versus periarticular acromioclavicular joint injection: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial
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.


出版資金提供の詳細 +
資金提供:
Industry funded
スポンサー:
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)
コンフリクト:
None disclosed

バイアスのリスク

8/10

報告基準

17/20

脆弱性指数

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)?

はい = 1

不確実=0.5

無関係 = 0

いいえ = 0

報告基準評価では、著者が出版物内で試験の方法論的特徴や試験特性を報告する際の透明性を評価します。評価は以下の5つのカテゴリーに分類されます。

4/4

Randomization

3/4

Outcome Measurements

4/4

Inclusion / Exclusion

2/4

Therapy Description

4/4

Statistics

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

Fragility Indexは、重要な所見の解釈を助けるツールで、結果の強さの尺度を提供します。Fragility Indexは、その所見が有意でなくなるために、二項対立の結果に追加する必要がある連続した事象の数を表します。数値が小さいほど弱い所見を表し、数値が大きいほど強い所見を表します。

なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか?

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.

主な研究課題は何ですか?

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?

研究の特徴 +
人口:
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
介入:
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)
比較:
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)
アウトカム:
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.
方法:
RCT, Assessor-blind, Patient-blind, Multicenter (7 centers), Prospective
時間:
Outcomes were assessed at 1 hour, 1 week, and 3 weeks post-injection

重要な知見は?

  • 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.
最も覚えておくべきことは?

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.

それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか?

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.

免責事項

このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。

0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
今月の無料記事閲覧数が4件に達しました。

週1.99ドルからOrthoEvidenceにアクセスできます。

最新のエビデンスにアクセスしてください。いつでもキャンセルできます。
  • 整形外科における最新のインパクトのあるランダム化比較試験とシステマティックレビューの批判的評価
  • Journal of Bone and Joint Surgeryとのコラボレーション、国際的に著名な外科医へのインタビュー、整形外科ニュースやトピックに関する座談会など、OrthoEvidenceポッドキャストコンテンツへのアクセス
  • 週2回発行されるエビデンスに基づくニュースレター、The Pulseの購読。
Upgrade
Close Dialog
おかえりなさい
パスワードをお忘れですか?
今すぐ無料トライアルを開始

あなたのアカウントは
OrthoEvidenceへの無料アクセスが含まれます。


または
パスワードをお忘れですか?

または
Eメールをご確認ください

入力されたメールアドレスにアカウントが存在する場合、パスワードリセットのメールが送信されます。メールが届かない場合は、迷惑メールフォルダをご確認ください。

その他のサポート サポートチームまでご連絡ください。.

この機能を有効にするにはログインしてください

この機能にアクセスするには、有効なOrthoEvidenceアカウントにログインする必要があります。ログインするか、無料トライアルアカウントを作成してください。

ACEレポートを翻訳

OrthoEvidenceは、多言語でコンテンツにアクセスできるようにするため、第三者の翻訳サービスを利用しています。正確性を確保するためにあらゆる努力をしていますが、翻訳が必ずしも完璧ではない可能性があることにご注意ください。

引用方法 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

引用のコピー
この機能を有効にするにはログインしてください

この機能にアクセスするには、有効なOrthoEvidenceアカウントにログインする必要があります。ログインするか、無料トライアルアカウントを作成してください。

プレミアム会員機能

この機能にアクセスするには、OrthoEvidenceのプレミアムアカウントにログインする必要があります。

共有 ACE Report