Hip Injections Research Articles

Clinical effectiveness of one ultrasound guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection in addition to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis (HIT trial): single blind, parallel group, three arm, randomised controlled trial.

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical effectiveness of adding a single ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic to advice and education in adults with hip osteoarthritis.DesignPragmatic, three arm, parallel group, single blind, randomised controlled trial.SettingTwo community musculoskeletal services in England.Participants199 adults aged ≥40 years with hip osteoarthritis and at least moderate pain: 67 were randomly assigned to receive advice and education (best current treatment (BCT)), 66 to BCT plus ultrasound guided injection of triamcinolone and lidocaine, and 66 to BCT plus ultrasound guided injection of lidocaine.InterventionsBCT alone, BCT plus ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 mL 1% lidocaine hydrochloride, or BCT plus ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of 5 mL 1% lidocaine. Participants in the ultrasound guided arms were masked to the injection they received.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was self-reported current intensity of hip pain (0-10 Numerical Rating Scale) over six months. Outcomes were self-reported at two weeks and at two, four, and six months.ResultsMean age of the study sample was 62.8 years (standard deviation 10.0) and 113 (57%) were women. Average weighted follow-up rate across time points was 93%. Greater mean improvement in hip pain intensity over six months was reported with BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine compared with BCT: mean difference −1.43 (95% confidence interval −2.15 to −0.72), P<0.001; standardised mean difference −0.55 (−0.82 to −0.27). No difference in hip pain intensity over six months was reported between BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine compared with BCT plus ultrasound-lidocaine (−0.52 (−1.21 to 0.18)). The presence of ultrasound confirmed synovitis or effusion was associated with a significant interaction effect favouring BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine (−1.70 (−3.10 to −0.30)). One participant in the BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine group with a bioprosthetic aortic valve died from subacute bacterial endocarditis four months after the intervention, deemed possibly related to the trial treatment.ConclusionsUltrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of triamcinolone is a treatment option to add to BCT for people with hip osteoarthritis.Trial registrationEudraCT 2014-003412-37; ISRCTN50550256.

Hematoma Formation After Hip Corticosteroid Injection in a Patient with Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia: A Case Report.

We present a 70-year-old woman with history of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia with a right thigh hematoma after a corticosteroid hip injection. Aspiration of the hematoma was attempted, but she developed a significant transfusion requirement with paresthesias in a lateral femoral cutaneous nerve distribution, prompting transfer. Imaging demonstrated no active extravasation, and she was managed conservatively. At 8-month follow-up, she had a persistent consolidated hematoma on the right side, and she subsequently died of complications of her cancer. This case demonstrates an unusual complication from a common nonoperative modality, as well as important coagulopathies that must be considered in patients with leukemia.

Intra-articular Hip Injection Using Anatomical and Radiological Landmarks Without the Use of Ultrasound or Radiological Guidance.

Introduction: Intra-articular hip injections are routinely performed under sonographic or fluoroscopic guidance in order to improve accuracy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and accuracy of a hip injection technique that does not require the use of fluoroscopic or ultrasound guidance and can be performed in the clinic. A combination of radiographic and anatomic landmarks was used in order to perform the hip injection, based on the use of simple hip radiographs.Methods: In this prospective study 35 patients with hip osteoarthritis or femoroacetabular impingement were included. All patients underwent intra-articular hip joint injection using the technique we describe. The injection location was determined based on measurements performed on hip radiographs using as reference points fixed anatomical landmarks, i.e., the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS), the cephalic, and caudal femoral head-neck junctions. The vertical distance between the ASIS and the greater trochanter and the horizontal distance between the two head-neck junctions, and the vertical line were also measured. The accuracy of the injection was assessed using ultrasound examination before and after the injection in order to verify intra-articular fluid injection.Results: Intra-articular hip joint injections using the described non-guided technique were successful in 33 of 35 (94.3%) patients without any complications.Conclusion: Hip injections can be performed with high accuracy without the need for radiological or ultrasound guidance using the described technique. The combination of radiological and anatomical landmarks to perform intra-articular hip injections is safe, cost-effective, and accurate.

A review of the efficacy of intraarticular hip injection for patients with hip osteoarthritis: To inject or not to inject in hip osteoarthritis?

Hip injection (HI) for osteoarthritis (OA) are in vogue nowadays. Corticosteroids (CSs) and hyaluronic acid (HA) gel are the two most common agents injected into the hip. Off late, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), mesenchymal stem cell (MSC), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), local anesthetic (LA) agents, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and their different combinations have also been injected in hips to provide desired pain relief. However, there is a group of clinicians who vary of these injections. A search of the literature was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and DOAJ using the keywords “hip osteoarthritis injection”. Data were analyzed and compiled. Intraarticular CSs are effective in providing the desired pain relief in OA hip, but repeated injections should be avoided and the interval between HI and hip arthroplasty must be kept for more than three months. Methylprednisolone or triamcinolone are combined with 1% lidocaine or 0.5% bupivacaine. Chondrotoxic effects of LA is a concern. Although national guidelines do not favor the use of HA for hip OA, numerous publications have favored its usage for a moderate grade of OA. The PRP, MSC, and BMAC are treatment options with great potential; however, currently, the evidence is conflicting on their role in hip OA. There is always a risk of septic arthritis, particularly when aseptic precautions are not followed, and clinicians must vary of this complication.

Frequency of Destructive Hip Disease Post Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Hip Injection

Objective: To find the frequency of destructive hip disease in post intra-articular corticosteroid hip Injection. Study Design: Retrospective study Place and Duration of Study: Department of Orthopaedic, Sahara Medical College Narowal from 1st January 2021 to 31st December 2021. Methodology: One hundred and twenty cases of corticosteroid injection in intra-articular region were analyzed. The radiological imaging within 6-12 months was used for finding frequency of rapidly destructive arthrosis. Narrowing of joint space greater than fifty percent with a loss of cartilage up to 2mm within a year was used for rapidly destructive arthrosis diagnosis. Kallgren and Lawrence scoring system ranged between 0-4 was used. Results: There were 73.3% and 26.7% males and mean was 53.1±3.3 years. The steroidal injection was placed as 40mg triamcinolone-acetonide with 4 mL 1% lidocaine in 77.5% of cases. 20.8% rapidly destructive arthrosis in all the patients who were injected with corticosteroid. The progression of total hip arthroplasty was noticeable in 22.5%. Conclusion: A high frequency of destructive hip disease is observed in intra-articular corticosteroid hip injections. Keywords: Frequency, Destructive hip disease, Intra-articular corticosteroid hip injection

Comparing the Risk of Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head Following Intra-Articular Corticosteroid and Hyaluronic Acid Injections.

Although intra-articular corticosteroid injections (CSIs) are a cornerstone in the nonoperative management of hip pathology, recent reports have raised concerns that they may cause osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). However, these studies might have been limited by nonrepresentative patient samples. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of ONFH after CSI and compare it with the incidence in a similar patient population that received a non-CSI injection. This was a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study of patients in the MarketScan database who underwent an intra-articular hip injection from 2007 to 2017. Patients receiving hip CSIs were matched 4:1 with patients receiving hip hyaluronic acid injections (HAIs) based on age, sex, geographic region, comorbidities, type of hip pathology, injection year, and baseline and follow-up time using propensity scores. The patients' first injections were identified, and the time to development of ONFH was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional-hazards models. Patients with a history of osteonecrosis or those who received both types of injections were excluded. A total of 3,710 patients undergoing intra-articular hip injection were included (2,968 CSIs and 742 HAIs; mean [standard deviation] age, 53.1 [9.2] years; 55.4% men). All baseline factors were successfully matched between the groups (all p > 0.57). The estimated cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval [CI]) of ONFH for CSI and HAI patients was 2.4% (1.8% to 3.1%) versus 2.1% (1.1% to 3.5%) at 1 year and 2.9% (2.2% to 3.7%) versus 3.0% (1.7% to 4.8%) at 2 years (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.84; p = 0.88). The results held across a range of sensitivity analyses. The incidence of ONFH after intra-articular hip injection was similar between patients who received CSIs and those who received HAIs. Although this study could not determine whether intra-articular injections themselves (regardless of the drug that was used) lead to ONFH, the results suggest that ONFH after CSI often may be due, in part, to the natural course of the underlying disease. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to definitively answer this question; in the interim, clinicians may be reassured that they may continue judicious use of CSIs as clinically indicated. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Hybrid Hyaluronic Acid versus High Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Hip Osteoarthritis in Overweight/Obese Patients.

Background: Obesity is the main risk factor for hip osteoarthritis, negatively affecting the outcome of the disease. We evaluated the effectiveness of viscosupplementation with hybrid hyaluronic acid compared to that with high molecular weight hyaluronic acid in overweight/obese patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: 80 patients were divided into two groups: a treatment group received two ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injections of hybrid HA 15 days apart; a control group received a single ultrasound-guided infiltration with medium-high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (1500–2000 kDa). We assessed the pain, functional and cardiovascular capacity of the patients at baseline, after 3 months, and after 6 months of the infiltrative sessions. Results: The treatment group showed greater improvements in the scores on the NRS scale (5.4 ± 0.8 vs. 6.3 ± 0.8; p < 0.05) and in the Lequesne index (11.4 ± 2.6 vs. 13.6 ± 2.7; p < 0.05) and in the distance traveled at 6MWT (238.1 ± 53.9 m vs. 210.7 ± 46.2 m; p = 0.02) both at 3 months (T1) and at 6 months (T2). Conclusions: This study underlines the importance of exploiting the anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and chondrogenic properties of hybrid HA for the treatment of hip OA in overweight/obese patients.

Association Between Preoperative Patient Factors and Clinically Meaningful Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Machine Learning Analysis

Background: The International Hip Outcome Tool 12-Item Questionnaire (IHOT-12) has been proposed as a more appropriate outcome assessment for hip arthroscopy populations. The extent to which preoperative patient factors predict achieving clinically meaningful outcomes among patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) remains poorly understood. Purpose: To determine the predictive relationship of preoperative imaging, patient-reported outcome measures, and patient demographics with achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the IHOT-12 at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were analyzed for consecutive patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS between 2012 and 2018 and completed the IHOT-12 preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Fifteen novel machine learning algorithms were developed using 47 potential demographic, clinical, and radiographic predictors. Model performance was evaluated with discrimination, calibration, decision-curve analysis and the brier score. Results: A total of 859 patients were identified, with 685 (79.7%) achieving the MCID, 535 (62.3%) achieving the PASS, and 498 (58.0%) achieving the SCB. For predicting the MCID, discrimination for the best-performing models ranged from fair to excellent (area under the curve [AUC], 0.69-0.89), although calibration was excellent (calibration intercept and slopes: –0.06 to 0.02 and 0.24 to 0.85, respectively). For predicting the PASS, discrimination for the best-performing models ranged from fair to excellent (AUC, 0.63-0.81), with excellent calibration (calibration intercept and slopes: 0.03-0.18 and 0.52-0.90, respectively). For predicting the SCB, discrimination for the best-performing models ranged from fair to good (AUC, 0.61-0.77), with excellent calibration (calibration intercept and slopes: –0.08 to 0.00 and 0.56 to 1.02, respectively). Thematic predictors for failing to achieve the MCID, PASS, and SCB were presence of back pain, anxiety/depression, chronic symptom duration, preoperative hip injections, and increasing body mass index (BMI). Specifically, thresholds associated with lower likelihood to achieve a clinically meaningful outcome were preoperative Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living <55, preoperative Hip Outcome Score–Sports Subscale >55.6, preoperative IHOT-12 score ≥48.5, preoperative modified Harris Hip Score ≤51.7, age >41 years, BMI ≥27, and preoperative α angle >76.6°. Conclusion: We developed novel machine learning algorithms that leveraged preoperative demographic, clinical, and imaging-based features to reliably predict clinically meaningful improvement after hip arthroscopy for FAIS. Despite consistent improvements after hip arthroscopy, meaningful improvements are negatively influenced by greater BMI, back pain, chronic symptom duration, preoperative mental health, and use of hip corticosteroid injections.

Primum Non Nocere: Is It Really True with Corticosteroid Hip Injections?

Commentary The article by Okike et al. provides new data on rapidly destructive hip disease (RDHD) following intra-articular corticosteroid (IACS) injection of the hip. The risk of an adverse effect on joints by local injections of corticosteroids was mentioned as early as 1951 by Hollander1, but corticosteroid hip injections were very rare during that period. RDHD (50% articular space narrowing in 1 year or femoral head destruction of >2 mm in 1 year) was first described by Forestier in 19572, and RDHD was only reported as an independent disease by Lequesne2 in 1970. As RDHD can be associated with other diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, chondrocalcinosis, amyloidosis, etc.), and as intra-articular injection of corticosteroids in the hip was uncommon before 1990, the relationship between these 2 events has remained highly debated and contested. After 2000, IACS injections increased in frequency for pain relief and theoretically for postponing total hip arthroplasty (THA) in cases of osteoarthritis (OA) or osteonecrosis. Several recent reports3 have suggested that these injections are associated with adverse events, particularly the paradoxical risk of accelerating the need for arthroplasty. The mystery has been partly solved by Okike et al., whose study confirmed these adverse effects and showed that the risk is related to the dose. Specifically, the authors reported a low risk of RDHD following a single low-dose (≤40-mg) triamcinolone injection but noted a high risk following a high-dose (≥80-mg) injection and multiple injections. What are the lessons that should be drawn from this article? Intra-articular injection represents the most invasive mode of nonoperative treatment that is used for the relief of pain in patients who have not responded to other conservative therapeutic modalities. The adverse effects of systemic corticosteroid therapy on bone, particularly the risk of hip osteonecrosis, are well known. Local injections of corticosteroids are generally considered safe, although they are known to be chondrotoxic4, probably by affecting the proteins of the cartilage, especially aggrecan, type-II collagen, and proteoglycan. Apart from RDHD, other side effects that have been described in association with hip corticosteroid injections include subchondral insufficiency fracture, osteonecrosis, and accelerated OA progression3. Therefore, corticosteroids are probably not as safe as we thought, when injected in the hip. Their use should be decreased, and the indications for hip injections (if any) should be limited. First, it must be remembered that there are other injectable products that may have an analgesic effect, including mesenchymal stem cells, hyaluronic acid, and platelet-rich plasma. Even if these products are often used for symptomatic relief rather than disease reversal, no risk of rapid destruction of a joint has been reported in association with these products. Unlike local corticosteroids, they conform to the old adage “primum non nocere,” and some regenerative potential has been demonstrated, at least in the knee5. Second, when corticosteroid hip injection is performed, the dose and the number of injections should be scrutinized and imaging should be obtained. If IACS injection is performed with ultrasound guidance, clinicians should consider obtaining repeat radiographs, before and after corticosteroid injections, in order to evaluate for eventual narrowing of the joint space. Furthermore, a normal radiograph associated with severe joint pain should lead to pre-injection magnetic resonance imaging to detect hip osteonecrosis, labral abnormality, or subchondral insufficiency fracture. Third, the severity of hip disease should be analyzed before corticosteroid hip injection. Patients with collapsed osteonecrosis or severe OA could be candidates for a limited number of low-dose IACS injections, given that THA would be their only other option to relieve pain. However, when a patient with early hip OA or with hip osteonecrosis without collapse is referred for corticosteroid injection, the patient should be informed about the risk of accelerating the disease, with worsening pain and a possible need for a premature THA to relieve pain. In conclusion, corticosteroid injections are frequently performed in the hip with the hope of relieving pain and of postponing THA. However, the article by Okike et al. should lead to a careful reconsideration of the routine use of corticosteroid hip injection.

Preoperative Intra-articular Steroid Injections as Predictors of Hip Arthroscopy: 2-Year Outcomes.

Background:In patients with femoroacetabular impingement, preoperative diagnostic injections are commonly used to establish a diagnosis of intra-articular pathology. In some cases, intra-articular steroid injections are also used for therapeutic purposes.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to determine if a positive response to intra-articular steroid injection was predictive of superior outcomes after hip arthroscopy to determine if the response to intra-articular steroid injection was predictive of outcomes after hip arthroscopy. It was hypothesized that a positive response to a preoperative hip injection would be predictive of improved short- to midterm outcomes after hip arthroscopy.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:This was a retrospective study of 208 patients who elected to have ultrasound-guided intra-articular steroid injection before they underwent hip arthroscopy between January 2016 and December 2016. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those who showed improvement in pain after the injection (steroid responder group) and those who showed no response (nonresponder group). The authors compared the preoperative and 2-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes (modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS] and Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living [HOS-ADL]) and radiographic findings between groups. Clinical endpoints, including rates of revision and conversion to total hip arthroplasty, were also reviewed.Results:There were 88 patients in the nonresponder group and 120 patients in the responder group, with no significant between-group differences in preoperative descriptive variables. The responder group had significantly higher 2-year mHHS and HOS-ADL, pre- to postoperative change in mHHS and HOS-ADL, percentage of patients achieving the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) on the mHHS, and percentage of patients reaching the minimum clinically important difference and the PASS on the HOS-ADL. There was no difference in Tönnis grade, acetabular labrum articular disruption grade, revision rate, or conversion to total hip arthroplasty between the 2 groups.Conclusion:The response to preoperative intra-articular injection did aid in predicting 2-year patient-reported outcomes of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement. Overall, the result of a preoperative intra-articular injection can be a helpful clinical tool for surgical decision-making and counseling patients on expected outcomes after hip arthroscopy.

Limited Field Radiation Therapy for Prophylaxis of Heterotopic Ossification of the Hip

Conventional prophylaxis for heterotopic ossification (HO) of the hip with radiotherapy (RT) includes treatment of the prosthesis, adductor, and abductor compartments. To limit RT effects on neovascularization and healing after surgery, we routinely used a limited-field RT (LF-RT), which only includes the affected compartment guided by pre-operative imaging. This study aims to examine whether LF-RT was as effective in preventing local recurrence as CF-RT.We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 85 consecutive patients who underwent post-operative RT for HO from March 2005 to June 2019. Patients treated to non-hip sites or without radiographic follow-up were excluded. RT fields were reviewed to determine whether they fall under CF-RT defined as inclusion of the prosthesis, adductor, and abductor compartments or LF-RT which was defined as the adductor compartment alone.A total of 48 patients were eligible. Most patients were male (60.4%), with a median age of 65 years (interquartile range (IQR) 60-75 years), and a median follow-up of 23.8 months (IQR 12.6-53.1 months). Most patients received 7 Gray (81.3%), with the most common technique being 2-dimensional RT (70.8 %). Thirty-six patients (75%) received LF-RT to the abductor compartment, whereas twelve patients (25%) received CF-RT. There was no significant difference in local recurrence between LF-RT (0%) and CF-RT (8.3%) (P = 0.4). No ipsilateral re-treatment was required in LF-RT patients compared to one CF-RT patient (8.3 %). The single recurrence in the CF-RT group was retreated with CF-RT. There were no recorded acute or late adverse events related to either field. No patient in either group required non-radiation secondary interventions such as hip injections or surgical revision for HO.Within this limited cohort, LF-RT was similarly efficacious as CF-RT in prophylaxis for HO of the hip with no added toxicity. Future centers that are interested in adopting LF-RT should routinely acquire pre-operative images to aid in the creation of treatment volumes.

89 Do Corticosteroid and Local Anaesthetic Hip Injections Administered Proximal or Distal to The Zona Orbicularis Have an Effect on Patient Satisfaction?

Abstract Aim Pubofemoral and ischiofemoral ligaments blend to make zona orbicularis. Zonaorbicularis has been suggested to force fluid from peripheral compartment to central compartment in unidirectional flow. This study aims to assess whether injection of corticosteroid with local anaesthetic injected either proximal or distal to the zona orbicularis has effect on patient satisfaction. Method This retrospective study investigated consecutive patients undergoing ultrasound guided hip injections at a single centre in the UK between November 2018 and March 2019. Patients were identified using IMPAX© picture archiving and communications system. Radiographs were assessed to see if radiopaque dye and therefore corticosteroid and local anaesthetic had been injected proximal or distal to the zona orbicularis. Clinic letters were accessed on the electronic patient record and we recorded whether patients had pain relief at 24 hours and 2 weeks following hip injection. Results 133 Patients were identified during the study period, of which 40 were included. At 24 hours post-injection 72% of patients were satisfied and 28% were unsatisfied, for which there was 76% and 70% satisfaction for proximal and distal injections respectively (p = 0.63). At 2 weeks post-injection 45% of patients were satisfied and 55% of patients unsatisfied, for which there was 47% and 44% satisfaction for proximal and distal injections respectively (p = 0.9). Conclusions Overall patient satisfaction is high following hip corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection. No difference was found between injections proximal and distal to the zona orbicularis. Further research is needed to quantify the association between proximal and distal injections.

Evaluation of CT-Guided Ultra-Low-Dose Protocol for Injection Guidance in Preparation of MR-Arthrography of the Shoulder and Hip Joints in Comparison to Conventional and Low-Dose Protocols.

To evaluate patients’ radiation exposure undergoing CT-guided joint injection in preparation of MR-arthrography. We developed a novel ultra-low-dose protocol utilizing tin-filtration, performed it in 60 patients and compared the radiation exposure (DLP) and success rate to conventional protocol (26 cases) and low-dose protocol (37 cases). We evaluated 123 patients’ radiation exposure undergoing CT-guided joint injection from 16 January–21 March. A total of 55 patients received CT-guided joint injections with various other examination protocols and were excluded from further investigation. In total, 56 patients received shoulder injection and 67 received hip injection with consecutive MR arthrography. The ultra-low-dose protocol was performed in 60 patients, the low-dose protocol in 37 patients and the conventional protocol in 26 patients. We compared the dose of the interventional scans for each protocol (DLP) and then evaluated success rate with MR-arthrography images as gold standard of intraarticular or extracapsular contrast injection. There were significant differences when comparing the DLP of the ultra-low-dose protocol (DLP 1.1 ± 0.39; p < 0.01) to the low dose protocol (DLP 5.3 ± 3.24; p < 0.01) as well as against the conventional protocol (DLP 22.9 ± 8.66; p < 0.01). The ultra-low-dose protocol exposed the patients to an average effective dose of 0.016 millisievert and resulted in a successful joint injection in all 60 patients. The low dose protocol as well as the conventional protocol were also successful in all patients. The presented ultra-low-dose CT-guided joint injection protocol for the preparation of MR-arthrography demonstrated to reduce patients’ radiation dose in a way that it was less than the equivalent of the natural radiation exposure in Germany over 3 days—and thereby, negligible to the patient.

Image-guided Intraarticular Hip Injections and Risk of Infection After Hip Arthroscopy (141)

Objectives:Intraarticular injections are fundamental in the diagnosis and treatment of many types of hip pathology. However, there are conflicting data about their safety ≤3 months prior to hip arthroscopy. One large database study demonstrated over a two-fold increase in infection risk (with infection rates far higher than what is typically seen clinically [>1-2%]), while a recent institutional study reported 0 infections in a series of 500 patients undergoing injection within 3 months of arthroscopy. An important difference between these works was the use of image-guidance, with the former not evaluating this factor and the latter including only ultrasound (US)-guided injections. In fact, despite the growing use of US-guided hip injections, no prior study has compared the risk of complications, including infection, between US and fluoroscopic (FL)- guided hip injections prior to hip surgery. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to assess the risk of infection associated with image-guided intraarticular injections prior to hip arthroscopy and compare that risk between US and FL- guidance.Methods:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy in a large commercial claims database (MarketScan) from 2007-2017. Patients were required to have 1-year of continuous enrollment prior to and 6-months after hip arthroscopy. Patient age, sex, geographic region, medical history, surgical details, and hip injections (including image- guidance, timing, and laterality) were collected. For both the US and FL cohort, patients who underwent injection ≤3 months preoperatively and >3-12 months preoperatively were compared to those who did not undergo preoperative injection. Patients with both types of injections, with an infection diagnosis at the time of index injection, or with missing laterality data were excluded. The primary outcome of this study was surgical site infection within 6 months of surgery. Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess the association between preoperative hip injection and infection. Finally, we performed sensitivity analyses that did not exclude patients with an infection at time of hip arthroscopy.Results:We identified 17,093 hip arthroscopy patients (mean [SD] age 37.2 [14.0] years; 14,685 [85.9%] no injection control patients and 2,408 [14.1%] patients who underwent hip arthroscopy within 12-months of image-guided hip injection) (Table 1). In the FL cohort (n=1,219 [50.7%]), 673 (55.2%) patients underwent hip arthroscopy ≤3 months after hip injection, while 546 (44.8%) patients underwent hip arthroscopy >3-12 months following hip injection. Similarly, for the US cohort, 673 (56.6%) patients underwent hip arthroscopy ≤3 months after their hip injection, while 516 (43.4%) patients underwent hip arthroscopy >3-12 months following hip injection. Patients undergoing FL-guided (0.55%) and US-guided (0.58%) hip injection >3-12 months prior to hip arthroscopy had similar infection rates as those who did not undergo intraarticular injection in the 12 months prior to hip arthroscopy (0.50%, p=0.76 and p=0.75, respectively) (Table 1). Similarly, the infection rates for patients undergoing US-guided (0.45%) and FL-guided (0.45%) injections in the 3-months prior to arthroscopy were not significantly different from control patients who did not undergo preoperative hip injection (0.50%, p=1 for both). Results held in adjusted analysis controlling for age, sex, geography, year, smoking, and comorbidities. In reference to the no injection cohort, the adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) of postoperative infection for patients undergoing FL-guided injection ≤3 months and >3-12 months prior to hip arthroscopy were 0.90 (0.28-2.94, p=0.87) and 1.17 (0.36-3.84, p=0.80), respectively. For US-guided injection, the adjusted odds ratios at ≤3 months and >3-12 months were 0.89 (0.28-2.87, p=0.84) and 1.11 (0.34-3.60, p=0.86), respectively. Notably, infection rates in the arthroscopy ≤3 months cohort were substantially higher when including patients with an infection at the time of hip arthroscopy (FL 1.18%, US 0.74%).Conclusions:Postoperative infection following intraarticular hip injection ≤3 months prior to hip arthroscopy is rare (<0.5%) and no more common than in patients who did not undergo preoperative injection. Moreover, there do not appear to be substantial differences in infection risk between imaging-modalities. Notably, postoperative infection rates were substantially higher in sensitivity analyses where we did not exclude patients who had an infection at the time of the hip injection/aspiration. As the common procedural code for hip injections also includes aspirations, the elevated rates seen in the prior large database study were likely due to the ‘injections’ being aspirations of infected joints that then underwent arthroscopy[VNH1] . In conclusion, in the largest ever sample of patients undergoing hip injections prior to hip arthroscopy, hip injection ≤3 months prior to hip arthroscopy was not associated with increased infection risk for either US- or FL-guided injections.

Rapidly Destructive Hip Disease Following Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Injection of the Hip.

While recent reports have suggested that hip corticosteroid injections can hasten joint degeneration, there are few published data on the topic. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate for an association between corticosteroid injection and rapidly destructive hip disease (RDHD) and to determine the rate of, and risk factors for, occurrence. This study was conducted in 2 parts. First, to assess for a potential association between hip corticosteroid injection and RDHD, a case-control analysis was performed. Patients who developed RDHD between 2013 and 2016 served as cases, whereas those who underwent total hip arthroplasty for diagnoses other than RDHD during the same period served as controls, and the exposure of interest was prior intra-articular hip corticosteroid injection. Second, in a retrospective cohort analysis, we analyzed all patients who received a fluoroscopically guided intra-articular hip corticosteroid injection at our institution from 2013 to 2016. The rate of post-injection RDHD was determined, and logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for occurrence. In the case-control analysis, hip corticosteroid injection was associated with the development of RDHD (adjusted odds ratio, 8.56 [95% confidence interval, 3.29 to 22.3], p < 0.0001). There was evidence of a dose-response curve, with the risk of RDHD increasing with injection dosage as well as with the number of injections received. In the retrospective cohort analysis, the rate of post-injection RDHD was 5.4% (37 of 688). Cases of post-injection RDHD were diagnosed at an average of 5.1 months following injection and were characterized by rapidly progressive joint-space narrowing, osteolysis, and collapse of the femoral head. This study documents an association between hip corticosteroid injection and RDHD. While the risk of RDHD following a single low-dose (≤40 mg) triamcinolone injection is low, the risk is higher following high-dose (≥80 mg) injection and multiple injections. These findings provide information that can be used to counsel patients about the risks associated with this common procedure. In addition, caution should be taken with intra-articular hip injections utilizing ≥80 mg of corticosteroid and multiple injections. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No Association Between Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices and Musculoskeletal Hip Joint Pain

PurposeTo investigate the association between intrauterine device (IUD) use and hip pain, orthopaedic visits for hip pain, and arthroscopic hip surgery.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18-44 years old using either IUDs or subdermal implants for contraception in a large commercial claims database (MarketScan) from 2012 to 2015. All patients had at least 12 months of continuous enrollment both before and after contraceptive placement. Patients with a history of hip pain or surgery were excluded. The primary outcome was new hip pain. Secondary outcomes included visiting an orthopaedic or sports medicine provider for a hip complaint, intra-articular hip injection, and arthroscopic hip surgery. Outcomes were analyzed with Cox proportional-hazard models.ResultsWe identified a total of 242,383 patients, including 216,541 (89.3%) with IUDs and 25,842 (10.7%) with subdermal contraceptive implants. In time-to-event analysis, IUDs (vs implants) were not associated with increased risk of new hip pain diagnoses (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.03, P = .21). In contrast, both age (P < .001) and region (P < .001) were associated with increased risk of new hip pain. Similar results were seen for the secondary outcomes, including risk of orthopaedic visits for hip complaints (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83-1.35, P = .63), intra-articular injections of the hip (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.63-1.41, P = .77), and hip arthroscopy procedures (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53-2.40, P = .75).ConclusionsIn this study, we found no evidence that IUDs were associated with hip pain or surgery.Level of EvidenceLevel III, retrospective cohort.

Image-Guided Intra-articular Hip Injections and Risk of Infection After Hip Arthroscopy

Background: Although intra-articular injections are important in the management of patients who may later undergo hip arthroscopy, conflicting data are available regarding the safety of such injections when administered within 3 months of surgery. Furthermore, despite the increasing use of image-guided intra-articular hip injections, it is unknown whether the type of imaging modality used is associated with infection after hip arthroscopy. Purpose: To assess the risk of infection associated with image-guided intra-articular injections before hip arthroscopy and, secondarily, compare that risk between ultrasound (US) and fluoroscopic (FL) guidance. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients in a large national insurance database who underwent hip arthroscopy between 2007 and 2017. Patients were required to have continuous enrollment from at least 1 year before to 6 months after hip arthroscopy. Patient age, sex, geographic region, medical history, surgical details, and hip injections were collected. Patients who underwent injection ≤3 months preoperatively and >3 to ≤12 months preoperatively were compared with patients who did not undergo preoperative injection. Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess the association between ipsilateral preoperative hip injection and surgical site infection within 6 months of surgery. Results: We identified 17,987 patients (36.3% female; mean ± SD age, 37.6 ± 14.0 years) undergoing hip arthroscopy, 2276 (12.7%) of whom had an image-guided hip injection in the year preceding surgery (53.0% FL). Patients who underwent intra-articular injection ≤3 months preoperatively had similar infection rates to patients who did not undergo preoperative injection in the year before surgery for both the FL (0.46% vs 0.46%; P≥ .995) and the US cohorts (0.50% vs 0.46%; P = .76). Results persisted in adjusted analysis (FL ≤3 months: OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.32-3.37; P = .94; US ≤3 months: OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.36-3.90; P = .78). Similar results were seen for patients undergoing injections >3 to ≤12 months preoperatively. Conclusion: Postoperative infection was rare in patients undergoing intra-articular hip injection ≤3 months before hip arthroscopy and was no more common than in patients not undergoing preoperative injection. Moreover, no differences were seen in infection risk between US and FL guidance. Although intra-articular hip injections should always be administered with careful consideration, these results do not suggest that these injections are uniformly contraindicated in the 3 months preceding hip arthroscopy.

Revisiting Intraarticular Corticosteroid Injections and Sports Medicine: Outcomes and Perioperative Considerations

Intraarticular corticosteroid injections are commonly administered by physicians to provide analgesia for acute athletic injuries, though there is an increasing body of literature that has illuminated substantial risks to the soft tissues. A review of Clinical Key, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases from 2012 to 2020 was performed using search terms, including corticosteroid, shoulder arthroscopy, knee arthroscopy, hip arthroscopy, intraarticular, and injections. The references of pertinent articles were reviewed for other relevant sources. Corticosteroid injections can provide reliable pain control in athletes for various pathologies affecting the shoulder, knee, and hip. The use of these medications has demonstrated efficacy in some disorders, whereas the clinical benefit for others remains questionable. Intraarticular injections to the shoulder, knee, and hip are all associated with increased risks to the soft tissues, which must be considered and weighed heavily, especially in an athlete. Perioperative corticosteroids confer an increased risk of surgical site infection after knee, shoulder, and shoulder arthroscopy. Subacromial injections confer an increased risk for revision rotator cuff repair if given within 6 months of surgery, but are safe if given at least 1 month postoperatively. Hip injections for chondral pathology perform significantly better than those for labral injuries.

Predictors of efficacy of viscosupplementation for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis: a retrospective cohort study

Background: Hip injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) have been used off-label to treat osteoarthritis (OA). The purpose of this retrospective cohort study of adults with OA was to review predictive factors and duration of action for patients who responded to HA hip injections. Methods: After institutional review board (IRB) approval, patients who had HA hip injections from 2014 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores obtained 1 mo after three injections were collected. Patients were classified into two groups: positive outcome (50% or greater reduction of VAS) and negative outcome (less than 50% reduction of VAS). Comparison of demographics, functional status, OA severity on Kellgren-Lawrence Grading Scale (KL), previous treatments, type of HA, and procedure techniques were performed. Continuous variables were summarized in mean and standard deviation (SD), and compared using two-sample t-test. Categorical variables were summarized in frequency and proportion, then compared using chi-square test or Fisher exact test. Results: The 157 patients who were reviewed had the following levels of OA severity: 24.3% mild (KL grade II), 25% moderate (KL grade III), 50.7% severe (KL grade IV). Positive outcomes were reported in 29.3% of patients, and 70.7% had “negative” outcomes. The positive outcome group had a mean duration (for 50% or greater decrease of VAS) of 4.24 mo (SD 3.62). The positive outcome group had milder OA (KL grades II to III) (P&lt;0.001) and younger age (P=0.03). No difference was noted among the two groups for other variables. Conclusions: Injections of HA for hip OA using the full recommended dosage regimen of commercially available HA products can be beneficial in select patients. The main predictors of significant response were younger age and mild to moderate (KL grade II to III) OA. Level of Evidence: Level III.

Comparing Intra-articular Injections of Leukocyte-Poor Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Low-Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Symptomatic Osteoarthritis of the Hip: A Double-Blind, Randomized Pilot Study.

Background:Hyaluronic acid (HA) and leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP) are 2 nonoperative treatment options that have been studied in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA).Purpose:To compare the efficacy of intra-articular injections of low–molecular weight (LMW) HA and LP-PRP in patients with hip OA.Study Design:Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.Methods:A total of 34 patients (36 hips) presenting with signs of hip OA were randomized to receive 3 blinded, weekly intra-articular injections of either LP-PRP or LMW-HA. Patients were prospectively evaluated before injections and at 6 weeks and then at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The primary outcome, conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) or a hip resurfacing procedure, was analyzed along with secondary outcomes including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score and hip range of motion.Results:The final analysis included 33 hips (mean Kellgren-Lawrence grade, 2.73) (LMW-HA: n = 14; LP-PRP: n = 19) in 31 patients (18 male; mean age, 53.8 years). Significantly more patients converted to THA or a hip resurfacing procedure in the LMW-HA group (7/14; 50.0%) (mean, 1.3 years after first injection) than the LP-PRP group (3/19; 15.8%) (mean, 0.73 years after first injection) (P = .035). There was no significant improvement or decline in any outcome scores within the LMW-HA group from before injections to 6 weeks or 3, 6, and 12 months. For the LP-PRP group, WOMAC overall (P = .032), joint (P = .030), and function scores (P = .025) significantly improved from before injections to 6 weeks, and WOMAC joint scores significantly improved from before injections to 6 months (P = .036). When comparing the difference between groups in internal rotation at 90° of hip flexion from before injections to 6 months, the LP-PRP group demonstrated a mean 5.0° improvement, while the LMW-HA group showed a mean 1.5° decrease (P = .028).Conclusion:Intra-articular hip injections of LP-PRP in patients with hip OA resulted in an improvement in WOMAC scores and hip internal rotation at 6 months and delayed the need for THA or a hip resurfacing procedure compared with treatment with LMW-HA. A longer follow-up is necessary to further compare the effects of LP-PRP and LMW-HA injections in patients with hip OA.Registration:NCT01920152 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).