Hip Injections Research Articles

Do platelet-rich plasma lateral hip (Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome) injections improve patient pain scores compared to corticosteroid injections?

Do platelet-rich plasma lateral hip (Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome) injections improve patient pain scores compared to corticosteroid injections?

Preoperative Hip Injection Response Does Not Reliably Predict 2-Year Postoperative Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement

PurposeTo determine whether response to preoperative local anesthetic or corticosteroid intra-articular injections can predict 2-year postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAIS at a single institution from 2014-2020. Patients who underwent preoperative intra-articular hip injection were classified based on injection type (local anesthetic, corticosteroid) and whether they experienced pain relief following injection (responders, non-responders). Responders were matched 2:1 by age, BMI, and sex with non-responders. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) including Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), 12-item Short-Form Survey mental (SF-12-MCS) and physical component summary (SF-12-PCS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain were collected preoperatively and 2-years postoperatively. Mean score change and Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) achievement were calculated and compared between groups. ResultsThe matched cohort included 126 total patients (42 non-responders, 84 responders; 74.6% female; mean ± SD age: 30.9 ± 9.9 years; BMI: 24.7 ± 3.7 kg/m2) with no differences in demographic or radiographic hip variables. Both groups demonstrated significant 2-year postoperative score improvements across all PROs, except SF-12-MCS, which remained unchanged. There was no difference in mean score change or MCID achievement across all PROs between corticosteroid injection responder and non-responder groups. In the local anesthetic group, MCID achievement was similar across all PROs, except VAS pain which showed greater percentage of MCID achievement among local anesthetic non-responders relative responders (Responders: 55.0%, Non-responders: 89.5%; p = 0.03). Significant ceiling effects were most readily apparent among the injection responders group with greater percentages of patients achieving maximal 2-year postoperative survey scores (36.9% HOOS-ADL, 19.0% HOOS-Pain, 15.5% HOOS-QoL, 32.1% HOOS-Sport). ConclusionsResponse to preoperative injection with either corticosteroid or local anesthetic did not predict 2-year outcomes after hip arthroscopy in patients with FAIS. Level of EvidenceLevel III, retrospective matched cohort study.

Comparison of Pain With Ultrasound-Guided Intra-Articular Hip Injections With and Without Prior Subcutaneous Local Anesthesia.

To compare pain levels of intra-articular hip steroid injections performed with and without prior subcutaneous local anesthesia (LA) injection. Randomized prospective study. University-based musculoskeletal clinic. Forty-one adult patients undergoing a first-time ultrasound-guided unilateral intra-articular hip steroid injection. Subjects were randomized into 1 of 2 groups: intra-articular hip injection with prior subcutaneous LA with 2 mL of lidocaine 1% (With LA) or hip injection without prior subcutaneous LA (Without LA). Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores (0-100) were collected before and after each injection. Visual analog scale pain score for the intra-articular hip injection. Of the 41 total subjects, 18 were randomized to the Without LA group and 23 to the With LA group. There was no significant difference in baseline (preprocedure) VAS scores between the Without LA (mean ± SD = 39.2 ± 27.2) and With LA (41.2 ± 24.0) groups (P = 0.864). The mean ± SD VAS score for the subcutaneous LA injection in the With LA group was 20.4 ± 16.1. There was no significant difference in VAS scores for the intra-articular hip injection between the Without LA (48.5 ± 27.7) and With LA (39.5 ± 25.7) groups (P = 0.232). Subcutaneous injection of lidocaine before an intra-articular hip injection did not significantly decrease pain from the intra-articular hip injection. Providers may perform intra-articular hip injections with a 22-gauge 3.5-inch spinal needle without the need for an extra subcutaneous LA injection.

Poster 186: The Utility of Preoperative Hip Injection Response as a Predictor of 2-Year Postoperative Outcomes Following Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement

Objectives: The objective of this study is to determine whether response to preoperative lidocaine or corticosteroid intra-articular hip injections can predict 2-year postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort consisting of patients who received a preoperative corticosteroid or lidocaine intra-articular hip injection and subsequently underwent hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAIS between 2014-2020. Patients were classified by injection received and labeled as “responders” if the injection provided pain relief. Lidocaine and corticosteroid cohorts were matched using 1:1 matching for age, BMI, and sex. Patient reported outcome (PRO) measurements including the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), 12-item Short-Form Survey mental (SF-12 MCS) and physical component survey (SF-12 PCS), and visual analog scale (VAS) Pain were completed both preoperatively and 2-years postoperatively. Mean differences in preoperative and 2-year postoperative scores were calculated as was the percentage of patients achieving a mean clinically important difference (MCID). Floor and ceiling effects of PROs were also evaluated with 15% of patients achieving a maximum or minimum survey score deemed as significant. Results: Our cohort included 110 patients (55 lidocaine, 55 corticosteroid) with no significant differences in preoperative demographic variables (Table 1). Both cohorts demonstrated significant 2-year postoperative score improvements across all PROs, except SF-12 MCS, which was unchanged. Lidocaine non-responders demonstrated greater 2-year mean difference in all PROs, except for SF-12 MCS, when compared to lidocaine responders (Table 2). Lidocaine non-responders also achieved MCID at higher rates than responders in both HOOS Pain & VAS Pain (Table 3). There was no difference in percentage of patients achieving MCID or mean difference in PROs between corticosteroid responders and non-responders. Ceiling and floor effects were seen in 2-year postoperative PROs of a combined lidocaine & corticosteroid responder cohort. [Ceiling: HOOS ADL (34.6%) HOOS Pain (21.0%) HOOS Sport (28.4%); Floor: VAS Pain (34.6%)] Conclusions: Preoperative intra-articular hip injection response did not predict 2-year postoperative outcomes after hip arthroscopy for FAIS. Results from this study suggest that preoperative injection response should not be used in isolation to predict outcomes after arthroscopic treatment of FAIS.

38-year-old woman with septic arthritis and retroperitoneal abscess after intraarticular corticosteroid injection: A case report

Rationale: Septic arthritis (SA) is an uncommon condition in which a pathogen invades a joint. SA presents clinically with monoarticular joint pain, swelling, and fever. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging are common diagnostic modalities for SA in conjunction with lab work such as white blood cell count. SA is typically treated by joint drainage and antibiotics and is associated with poor outcomes. Patient concerns: A 38-year-old woman with 3 prior arthroscopies over a seven-year period presented with an unresolved eight-year history of sharp intermittent pain in the groin and lateral hip. She was referred for nonsurgical treatment of her pain and received 2 corticosteroid hip injections. Subsequently following the injection, the patient developed fever, chills, and a mottled rash over her hip. Diagnoses: Magnetic resonance imaging and inflammatory markers were obtained. Osteomyelitis with septic arthritis of the right hip with extension into the retroperitoneum was confirmed. Interventions: The patient underwent resection arthroplasty with open retroperitoneal decompression of the iliopsoas abscess. Cultures isolated Staphylococcus aureus. Subsequent staged articulating hip spacer followed by reimplantation with total hip arthroplasty were performed. Outcomes: The patient had significant improvement as measured by patient reported outcomes scores. Lessons: This case report describes a unique case of hip septic arthritis, with retroperitoneal abscess post-intra articular injection, that resulted in subsequent open retroperitoneal incision and debridement followed by two-stage resection arthroplasty with articulating spacer and total hip arthroplasty.

PATIENTS WITH FEMOROACETABULAR IMPINGEMENT SYNDROME OBTAIN SIGNIFICANT AND SUSTAINED IMPROVEMENT FOLLOWING A COMBINED HIP INJECTION AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION Initial treatment recommendations for symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement syndrome include non-surgical therapies such as injections and rehabilitation. However, many patients undergo isolated injections or a rudimentary exercise regime. This study investigated the benefit of a combined intra-articular hip injection and structured exercise rehabilitation program in patients with FAIS. METHODS Participants were recruited and underwent a guided intra-articular injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic, followed by a 12-week rehabilitation program. Patients were assessed pre-and post-injection(8 weeks, 4, 6, 12 and 24 months) via patient-reported outcome measures including the 33-item International Hip Outcome Tool and Hip Outcome score. Hip ROM and peak isometric hip strength in all planes were assessed, along with single-limb hop capacity. Limb Symmetry Indices were calculated. The percentage of patients transitioning toward surgery over the period was evaluated. RESULTS A total of 44 patients underwent the injection and completed the initial 8-week rehabilitation component. A significant improvement (p<0.05) in all PROMs was observed, with 93% of patients satisfied. A significant increase (p<0.05) in all active hip ROM and isometric strength measures was observed, sustained over the 24-month period. Bilateral improvements in hop capacity were observed, with all hop test LSIs significantly improving (p<0.05). Overall, 14 patients (32%) progressed toward surgical intervention over the 24-month post-injection period. These patients reported significantly worse (p<0.05) PROMs pre-surgery and more pain within the first 4 weeks post-injection. CONCLUSION This is the first study seeking to implement and comprehensively assess a best-practice, multimodal non-operative program consisting of an intra-articular injection and a structured exercise program. Most patients with symptomatic FAIS demonstrated significant improvement in symptoms.

Ultrasound-Guided Hip Injections with High Density Hyaluronic Acid: Outcome at One Year Follow Up.

Background: The ultrasound-guided viscosupplementation of the hip joint with hyaluronic acid (HA) is considered a standard procedure among the conservative treatments for hip arthritis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical benefit and the incidence of adverse events of the technique in an observational study at one year follow up. Methods: We evaluated a consecutive series of 85 patients with a diagnosis of symptomatic arthritis who underwent intra-articular ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid injections. The scales used for evaluation were modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster University), and Hip Outcome Score (HOS) with subscale Sport (HOSs), for pain the Visual Analogic Scale (VAS). The patients were classified according to Tonnis' radiological classification of arthritis (range 0-3): 20 patients (grade 0), 32 (grade 1), 18 (grade 2), 15 (grade 3). Results: At last follow up, all the scales increased: mHHS from 59.35 to 82.1, HOS from 69.45 to 78.53, HOss from 47.4 to 58.11, VAS from 6.09 to 3.97, WOMAC from 33.2 to 31.5 (p < 0.05 for all the parameters); the results were elaborated with GraphPad Prism v5.0 (Prism Software La Jolla, CA, USA) using Wilcoxon's test. A total of 13 patients out of 85 needed arthroplasty, all classified as Tonnis grade 3. No serious adverse events were noted due to the procedure. Conclusions: Based on our findings, indication for the use of hyaluronic acid is limited to patients with mild to moderate arthritis. Patients in advanced arthritis refusing replacement surgery and asking for this treatment should be informed about the poor results of the technique even in the short term.

Association between abductor tears and hip pathology: A nationwide large cohort study

IntroductionAlthough gluteal tears have been observed in a substantial percentage of total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients and hip osteoarthritis (OA) has been shown to alter the function of the gluteal muscles, the association between gluteal tears and hip OA has not been characterized. Therefore, we evaluated (1) the overlap between hip OA and gluteal tears, (2) the relative risks of gluteal tears in patients who have hip OA, and (3) gluteal tear-free survival after diagnosis or treatment for hip osteoarthritis. MethodsThis retrospective study sourced data from TriNetX, a research network that aggregates data from over 92 million patients. Relative risks for gluteal tears were calculated for known risk factors for gluteal tears, age ≥45 years, female sex, and obesity, as well as for hip OA, hip injections, and THA. A subgroup analysis was performed utilizing a Cox proportional hazard model for patients who were diagnosed with hip OA, received a hip injection, or underwent THA in 2015 to assess gluteal tear-free survival over a 9-year timeframe. ResultsThere was a large degree of overlap between patients with hip OA and gluteal tears, as 17.9% of patients with hip OA and 27.5% of patients with a gluteal tear also had the other pathology. Hip OA was associated with a markedly increased risk of a gluteal tear compared to healthy controls (Relative risk: 26.75, 95% CI: 26.64–26.86). Upon controlling for the established risk factors of gluteal tears, patients with hip OA had a markedly more likely to subsequently be diagnosed with an abductor tear (Hazard ratio: 12.46, 95% CI: 11.75–13.22). ConclusionOverall, these findings suggest a strong association between hip OA and the development of gluteal tears, in which further investigation is merited to determine the biomechanical pathophysiology underlying this potential relationship to inform prevention and treatment strategies.

Ultrasound guided injection with Collagen-based Medical Device: real-life evaluation of efficacy and safety in hip osteoarthritis.

Data regarding the treatment of hip osteoarthritis (OA) with collagen-based extracellular bio-scaffolds are lacking. We evaluated the treatment of hip OA with ultrasound guided intraarticular injections of Collagen-based Medical Device(CMD). Forty-four patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade (KLG) I or II were selected, and 20/44randomly selected patients (CMD group), were treated with 2 weekly consecutive ultrasound guided intraarticular injections ofCMD (MD-HIP, Guna S.p.a. Milan, Italy). An additional 24/44 patients were treated with oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatorydrugs (NSAIDs) daily (NSAIDs group). Clinical assessment, X-rays and ultrasound evaluation were performed at baseline,and after 1 month in both groups, and after 3 months in the CMD group. Outcome measures were general pain VAS (0-10), thewhole WOMAC score, and the WOMAC specific subscores. CMD and NSAIDs group were homogenous for age,gender, VAS pain and WOMAC scores. The CMD group had significant improvement of the VAS pain (p<0.0001), globalWOMAC score (p<0.0001) and WOMAC function (p<0.0001) from baseline to the 1st month, with further improvementfrom the 1st to the 3rd month (p<0,001; p<0.01; p<0.03, respectively). Significant improvement in WOMAC pain (p<0.0001)and WOMAC stiffness (p<0.0001) was detected at 1st month, with no significant change at 3rd month. In the NSAIDs groupsignificant improvement in WOMAC function was detected after 1 month (p=0.021) only. No adverse events were recorded inthe CMD and NSAIDs group. The ultrasound guided intraarticular hip injections of CMD resulted in significantimprovement in VAS pain and WOMAC scores compared to treatment with oral NSAIDs.

CORTICOSTEROID AND LIDOCAIN INJECTION FOR TREATMENT OF HIP OSTEOARTHRITIS : AN UPDATE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Background: Intraarticular corticosteroid injections (ICSI) can relieve pain in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) for weeks. A recent randomized controlled trial showed superior pain improvement following ICSI compared to treatment without injection over a period of 6 months. Atchia et al. compared ICSI to saline-injection and treatment without injection and found ICSI to be the only treatment resulting in significant improvement in both pain and function. The aim: The aim of this study to show about corticosteroid and lidocaine injection for treatment of hip osteoarthritis. Methods: By the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020, this study was able to show that it met all of the requirements. This search approach, publications that came out between 2014 and 2024 were taken into account. Several different online reference sources, like Pubmed, SagePub, and Google Scholar were used to do this. It was decided not to take into account review pieces, works that had already been published, or works that were only half done. Result: In the PubMed database, the results of our search get 7 articles, whereas the results of our search on SagePub get 6 articles, on Google Scholar 1690 articles. Records remove before screening are 1438, so we get 265 articles fos screening. After we screened based on record exclude, we compiled a total of 10 papers. We included five research that met the criteria. Conclusion: Ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic, administered with advice and education, is a clinically effective treatment for rapid and sustained symptom response compared with advice and education alone for people with hip osteoarthritis. These findings provide evidence to inform international guidelines and support treatment decision making for policy makers, payers (commissioners), GPs, and clinicians in musculoskeletal services.

Posterior intra-articular hip injections: a pilot study investigating a new approach.

The purpose of this study was to investigate a novel posterior intra-articular hip injection approach while discussing the clinical pearls for methodology, accuracy, and associated adverse events. The goal was to investigate if this approach could potentially be used in those where the typical anterior access would be challenging. 10 adults (age > 18years) who were referred to a tertiary outpatient clinic for hip injection due to hip osteoarthritis or femoral acetabular impingement with labral tearing to a single academic sports medicine clinic. Patients were placed in prone position. Posterior structures were identified using a curvilinear transducer. A 22 gauge 3.5-6-inch spinal needle was advanced in-plane to the transducer towards the hip capsule at the head-neck junction of the femur from inferolateral to superomedial. A fluoroscopic arthrogram was obtained to evaluate needle placement accuracy. Location of the needle, direction of contrast flow, the rate of conversion to an anterior portal, and adverse events were analyzed. A fluoroscopic arthrogram was obtained after the first attempt in nine patients (90%). One patient (10%) was converted to the anterior approach due to inability to obtain the expected arthrogram. Two patients (20%) demonstrated mild adverse events. Ultrasound-guided posterior approach hip injection is accurate and without serious adverse events in our study. The posterior approach can be considered as an alternative approach for patients who cannot tolerate or may have technical difficulty with an anterior approach.

The cost-effectiveness of adding an ultrasound corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis

Abstract Objectives Evidence for the comparative cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection in people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of best current treatment (BCT), comprising advice and education, with BCT plus a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 ml 1% lidocaine hydrochloride (BCT+US-T). Methods A trial-based cost–utility analysis of BCT+US-T compared with BCT was undertaken over 6 months. Patient-level cost data were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Results BCT+US-T was associated with lower mean NHS costs (BCT+US-T minus BCT: −£161.6; 95% CI: −£583.95, £54.18) and small but significantly higher mean QALYs than BCT alone over 6 months (BCT+US-T minus BCT: 0.0487; 95% CI: 0.0091, 0.0886). In the base case, BCT+US-T was the most cost-effective and dominated BCT alone. Differences in total costs were driven by number of visits to NHS consultants, private physiotherapists and chiropractors, and hip surgery, which were more common with BCT alone than BCT+US-T. Conclusion Intra-articular corticosteroid injection plus BCT (BCT+US-T) for patients with hip OA results in lower costs and better outcomes, and is highly cost-effective, compared with BCT alone. Trial registration EudraCT: 2014-003412-37 (8 August 2015) and registered with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN 50550256 (28 July 2015). Trial protocol Full details of the trial protocol can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0, doi: doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0.

Experiences of living with hip osteoarthritis and of receiving advice, education and ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection in the hip injection trial. A qualitative study.

The Hip Injection Trial (HIT) compared the effectiveness of adding a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection of either corticosteroid and local anaesthetic or local anaesthetic alone to advice and education among people with hip osteoarthritis (OA). This nested qualitative study explored participants' experiences of living with hip OA and of the trial treatment they received. Semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with a purposeful sample of trial participants after a 2-month trial follow-up. Interviewers were blinded to which injection participants had received. Thematic analysis using constant comparison was undertaken prior to knowing the trial results. 34 trial participants were interviewed across all arms. OA causes pain, physical limitations, difficulties at work, lowered mood, and disrupted sleep. Those who received advice and education alone felt that they had not received 'treatment' and described little/no benefit. Participants in both injection groups described marked improvements in pain, physical function, and other aspects of life (e.g., sleep, confidence). The perceived magnitude of benefit appeared greater among those who received the corticosteroid injection; however, the length of benefit varied in both injection groups. There was uncertainty about the longer-term benefits of injection and repeated injections. Hip OA is highly burdensome. Participants perceived little/no benefit from advice and education alone but reported marked improvements when combined with either injection. However, the magnitude of benefit was greater among those who received corticosteroid. The varying duration of response to injection and uncertainty regarding longer-term benefits of injection and repeated injections suggests that these areas are important for future research. EudraCT 2014-003412-37; ISRCTN50550256.

The Effects of Ultrasound-Guided Intra-Articular Injections with Hyaluronic Acid and Corticosteroids in Patients with Hip Osteoarthritis: A Long-Term Real-World Analysis.

Intra-articular (IA) ultrasound-guided hip injections are currently considered a cornerstone of the conservative management of symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (HOA), although their effect on clinical outcomes has not been fully elucidated.The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided IA hip injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) with or without corticosteroids (CS) on pain relief and functional improvement in patients with HOA. In total, 167 patients with HOA were assessed at baseline (T0) and 12 months after injection (T1) using the VAS and GLFS scores. The sample consisted mainly of female subjects (58.1%), presenting an average age of 70.6 ± 12.2 years and grade 3 HOA (63.9%) according to the Kellgren-Lawrence classification. Most of the patients (76.2%) underwent unilateral hip injection with a combination of medium-high molecular weight HA (1500-2000 kDa) and CS. At T1, lower use of anti-inflammatory drugs, an increase in the consumption of chondroprotectors, and an overall reduction of instrumental physical therapies and therapeutic exercise were recorded. In addition, a statistically significant intragroup and between-group decrease observed at T1 for both the VAS and GLFS. Study results suggested that intra-articular hip injections with HA alone and with CS could represent a useful therapeutic tool for pain reduction and functional improvement for patients with hip osteoarthritis.

Efficacy of three different techniques in the fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular steroid injection of the hip: a randomized controlled trial

Fluoroscopy-guided injection via the anterior (A), anterolateral (AL), or proximal anterolateral (PAL) approaches are the common hip injection techniques without comparing the efficacy of the three techniques. The prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from August 2020 to March 2022. Included patients with intra-articular hip disorders indicated an intra-articular steroid injection. Excluded significant spine pathology with radiculopathy or significant neurological deficits, previous hip surgery of the injection side, suspected tumor or infection origins, steroid or contrast media allergy, and body mass index > 35 kg/m2. The primary outcome was the injection attempt defining one attempt and multiple attempts. 90 patients were recruited and allocated to 30 per group. There were no differences between A, AL, and PAL respectively regarding the success in one attempt rate (80%, 80%, 90%; p = 0.533), VAS during local anesthetic injection (4.33 ± 1.99, 3.70 ± 2.34, 4.27 ± 2.49; p = 0.500), VAS during intra-articular injection (4.27 ± 1.87, 4.70 ± 2.37, 4.13 ± 2.37; p = 0.587), radiation doses (0.558 ± 0.313, 0.526 ± 0.485, 0.492 ± 0.275 mGy; p = 0.788), radiation time (0.043 ± 0.017, 0.039 ± 0.021, 0.041 ± 0.015 seconds; p = 0.723), and complications. The post-injection mHHS was improved in all three approaches without significant differences.

The Role of Ultrasonography in Hip Impingement Syndromes: A Narrative Review.

Hip pain is indubitably a frequent clinical problem deriving from copious etiologies. Hip impingement syndromes are one of the most prevalent causes of persistent groin pain, especially in young and active patients. Diligent imaging of the hip region is indispensable to discern femoroacetabular impingement, as the differential diagnosis of hip pain can be exceedingly arduous. Despite hip radiography being plain and broadly attainable, it offers narrow information concerning soft tissue pathologies around the hip joint (extra-articular hip impingement syndromes). Magnetic resonance imaging and arthrography remain the gold standard examination for detecting intra-articular pathologies; however, they are widely considered expensive, time-consuming and characterized by confined. Consequently, ultrasonography has emerged as an alternative valuable diagnostic tool for distinguishing the underlying abnormalities that trigger femoroacetabular impingement. Proper hip ultrasound examination provides dynamic assessment, while also beneficial for guided intervention around the hip joint. Ultrasound hip examination is exacting due to its complex regional anatomy and deep location. It is capable of providing detailed information about various hip quadrants. An adept operator can identify both intra-articular and extra-articular pathologies. In addition, with ultrasonography, hip injections have been rendered relatively undemanding, aiding in therapeutic and diagnostic purposes. This paper aims to provide a succinct and compendious review of the existing literature, accentuating the crucial role of ultrasonography in diagnosing hip impingement syndromes and determining whether an additional examination is required regarding distinguishing between intra-articular and extra-articular syndromes.

Physician Assistant Use of Ultrasound for Shoulder, Hip, and Knee Joint Injections

Background: Physician assistants (PAs) perform joint injections in the office setting. Although ultrasound (US) provides a safe option that increases accuracy of injections, this orthopedic specific training has not been routinely offered in PA education. The aim of this study was to examine the frequency with which orthopedic PAs performed shoulder, hip, and knee joint injections, with and without US, and how US training was obtained. Methods: In a quantitative descriptive cross-sectional study, PAs received a link to a self-designed survey by an email list provided by the physician assistants in orthopedic surgery. Results: Most PAs with access to US performed 10 or less shoulder, hip, and knee joint injections using US each month. The most common US training reported was on-the-job (n = 141; 35.30%), independent courses (n = 91; 22.80%), and self-taught (n = 70; 17.50%). Nearly one-half (n = 196; 49.00%) reported no US training, leading to 177 PAs (60.00%) perceiving they were not at all or only somewhat prepared to perform US in clinical practice. Conclusion: Overall, shoulder and knee joint injections were performed more often in the office than hip joint injections and were more commonly performed without US. Most PAs perceived they were not prepared to perform US in practice during their formal education, with many having sought further training.

Do prior intra-articular injections impact on the risk of periprosthetic joint infection in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of the current evidences with a focus on the timing of injection before surgery.

Intra-articular injection is a well-established and increasingly used treatment for the patient with mild-to-moderate hip osteoarthritis. The objectives of this literature review and meta-analysis are to evaluate the effect of prior intra-articular injections on the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and to try to identify which is the minimum waiting time between hip injection and replacement in order to reduce the risk of infection. The database of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library was systematically and independently searched, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. To assess the potential risk of bias and the applicability of the evidence found in the primary studies to the review, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used. The statistical analysis was performed by using the software 'R' version 4.2.2. The pooling of data revealed an increased risk of PJI in the injection group that was statistically significative (P = 0.0427). In the attempt to identify a 'safe time interval' between the injection and the elective surgery, we conducted a further subgroup analysis: in the subgroup 0-3 months, we noted an increased risk of PJI after injection. Intra-articular injection is a procedure that may increase the risk of developing periprosthetic infection. This risk is higher if the injection is performed less than 3 months before hip replacement.

ID: 219117 Crossing Percutaneous Leads: A Case of Iatrogenic Spinal Stenosis

A 74 y.o. F was trialed with a percutaneous spinal cord stimulator system and had excellent efficacy. After an uneventful implant however, she reported worsening right upper hip and thigh pain that was different from prior to her implant. The pain had been steadily worsening since device placement, with workup being negative for acute hip articular process or venous embolism. Intra-articular hip injections appeared to help some of the hip pain, but not the thigh pain which prevented her from ambulating.

Improved and Sustained Clinical Outcomes are Observed in the Majority of Patients with Symptomatic Non-arthritic Hip Pain Undergoing a Formal Non-operative Management Program Combining a Hip Injection and Structured Exercise Rehabilitation Program

Improved and Sustained Clinical Outcomes are Observed in the Majority of Patients with Symptomatic Non-arthritic Hip Pain Undergoing a Formal Non-operative Management Program Combining a Hip Injection and Structured Exercise Rehabilitation Program