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
Descarregar
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
Descarregar
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.


Detalhes do financiamento da publicação +
Financiamento:
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)
Conflitos:
None disclosed

Risco de viés

8/10

Critérios de notificação

17/20

Índice de Fragilidade

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)?

Sim = 1

Incerto = 0,5

Não relevante = 0

Não = 0

A Avaliação dos Critérios de Relato avalia a transparência com que os autores relatam as caraterísticas metodológicas e do ensaio na publicação. A avaliação está dividida em cinco categorias que são apresentadas de seguida.

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

O Índice de Fragilidade é uma ferramenta que auxilia na interpretação de achados significativos, fornecendo uma medida de força para um resultado. O Índice de Fragilidade representa o número de eventos consecutivos que precisam de ser adicionados a um resultado dicotómico para que o resultado deixe de ser significativo. Um número pequeno representa um resultado mais fraco e um número grande representa um resultado mais forte.

Porque é que este estudo era necessário agora?

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 a principal questão de investigação?

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?

Caraterísticas do estudo +
População:
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
Intervenção:
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)
Comparação:
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
Tempo:
Outcomes were assessed at 1 hour, 1 week, and 3 weeks post-injection
Quais foram os resultados 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.
De que é que me devo lembrar mais?

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.

Como é que isto afectará o tratamento dos meus doentes?

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.

AVISO LEGAL

O conteúdo desta página destina-se apenas a fins informativos e não pretende substituir o aconselhamento, diagnóstico ou tratamento médico profissional. Se necessitar de tratamento médico, procure sempre o conselho do seu médico ou dirija-se ao serviço de urgência mais próximo. As opiniões, crenças e pontos de vista expressos pelos indivíduos no conteúdo encontrado nesta página não reflectem as opiniões, crenças e pontos de vista da OrthoEvidence.

0 de 4 artigos mensais GRATUITOS desbloqueados
Atingiu o seu limite de 4 visualizações de artigos gratuitos este mês

Aceda à OrthoEvidence por apenas $1,99 por semana.

Mantenha-se ligado às últimas evidências. Cancele a qualquer altura.
  • Avaliações críticas dos mais recentes ensaios clínicos aleatórios de alto impacto e revisões sistemáticas em ortopedia
  • Acesso ao conteúdo do podcast OrthoEvidence, incluindo colaborações com o Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, entrevistas com cirurgiões reconhecidos internacionalmente e discussões em mesa redonda sobre notícias e tópicos ortopédicos
  • Subscrição do The Pulse, um boletim informativo duas vezes por semana baseado em evidências, concebido para o ajudar a tomar melhores decisões clínicas
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bem-vindo de volta!
Esqueceu-se da palavra-passe?
Comece hoje o seu teste GRATUITO!

A sua conta será afiliada a
e inclui acesso gratuito ao OrthoEvidence


OU
Esqueceu-se da palavra-passe?

OU
Verifique o seu e-mail

Se existir uma conta com o endereço de e-mail fornecido, ser-lhe-á enviado um e-mail de reposição da palavra-passe. Se não vir uma mensagem de correio eletrónico, verifique a sua pasta de spam ou de lixo eletrónico.

Para obter mais assistência, contacte a nossa equipa de apoio.

Inicie sessão para ativar esta funcionalidade

Para aceder a esta funcionalidade, tem de iniciar sessão numa conta OrthoEvidence ativa. Inicie a sessão ou crie uma conta de avaliação GRATUITA.

Traduzir o Relatório ACE

A OrthoEvidence utiliza um serviço de tradução de terceiros para tornar o conteúdo acessível em vários idiomas. Tenha em atenção que, embora sejam feitos todos os esforços para garantir a exatidão, as traduções podem nem sempre ser perfeitas.

Como citar isto 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

Copie a citação
Inicie sessão para ativar esta funcionalidade

Para aceder a esta funcionalidade, tem de iniciar sessão numa conta OrthoEvidence ativa. Inicie a sessão ou crie uma conta de avaliação GRATUITA.

Funcionalidade de Membro Premium

Para aceder a esta funcionalidade, tem de ter sessão iniciada numa conta Premium da OrthoEvidence.

Partilhe isto ACE Report