Intra-articular Hip Injections Research Articles

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 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.

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.

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.

Response to Letter to the Editor; A Novel Approach for Fluoroscopic Guided Intraarticular Hip Injections: A critical analysis.

Santana De Los Santos, Javier Antonio; Cross, Aaron; Castaneda, Pablo; Sherman, Andrew L. Author Information

A Novel Approach for Fluoroscopic Guided Intra-articular Hip Injections: A critical analysis.

a Department of Medicine, Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, NJ b American Preventive Screening & Education Association (APSEA), Stratford, NJ Nicholas Averell (ORCID: 0000-0003-1069-6913) Rahyan Mahmud (ORCID: 0000-0001-7430-4347) Brandon Goodwin (ORCID: 0000-0002-3965-4664) Corresponding author: Nicholas J. Averell, Department of Medicine, Rowan School of Osteopathic Medicine, 1 Medical Center Dr, Stratford, NJ 08084, Phone: (732) 267-1330, Fax: (973) 996-8668. Email: [email protected] Acknowledgments: None Funding: No funding was received for this study/paper. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Data: All data is publicly available

Gadolinium injected concurrently with anesthetic can result in false-negative diagnostic intra-articular hip injections.

The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the response to intra-articular hip injections with and without concurrent gadolinium administration. Our secondary outcome was to compare post-operative outcomes between patients with an initial false-negative gadolinium-containing injection and a matched control group. Patients receiving a series of two hip diagnostic intra-articular injections (DIAI), the first with gadolinium for concurrent MRA and the second without gadolinium, were retrospectively identified. Pain response to DIAI, injectate volume, local anesthetic volume, inclusion of corticosteroids, and method of injection were compared between injections. False-negative injection was defined as < 50% pain relief with concurrent gadolinium, but ≥ 50% pain relief with subsequent anesthetic injection without gadolinium. False-negative injections in patients that ultimately underwent primary hip arthroscopy were identified from this cohort and matched in a 3:1 ratio to a control cohort to compare short-term post-operative single assessment numerical evaluation (SANE) outcomes. Forty-three patients underwent a series of anesthetic injections with and without gadolinium and met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Pain response was significantly different in injections performed with and without gadolinium (18% vs. 81%; p < 0.001). There were significant differences in total injectate volume, local anesthetic volume, corticosteroid use, and method of injection between injections, but these variables were not correlated with pain response. Fifteen patients with false-negative responses to injection underwent primary hip arthroscopy and were matched in a 3:1 ratio to a control cohort. There was no difference in short-term post-operative SANE scores between the gadolinium-sensitive and control groups (81.6 vs. 80.0, n.s.). Concurrent administration of intra-articular gadolinium with DIAI may result in a false-negative response to anesthetic. Additionally, in patients with initial false-negative DIAI with gadolinium, short-term post-operative outcomes after hip arthroscopy are similar to a matched cohort. Level III.

Effects of Preexisting Anxiety and Depression on Postoperative Outcomes in Patients Aged 30 Years and Younger Following Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

Background: Mental health influences postoperative outcomes in orthopedic procedures. Increasing attention is being paid to this effect. Purpose: We sought to evaluate the effect of diagnosed depression, anxiety, or both on postoperative outcomes in patients who have undergone hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 289 patients aged 30 years or younger who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS at a single institution from January 2014 to June 2021. Univariate statistics were used to assess differences between patients diagnosed with depression, anxiety, or both, and those without these diagnoses. Differences included demographics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes: duration of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, PACU pain scores, complications, reoperations, postoperative injections, 90-day emergency department (ED) visits, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Multivariate analysis was used to evaluate risk factors for postoperative complications, including wound infection, documented reinjury, postoperative intra-articular hip injection, and any reoperation. Results: Patients diagnosed with depression, anxiety, or both were more likely to be older, female, and have a higher comorbidity burden. At the time of surgery, they were more likely to undergo concomitant procedures, including bursectomy and iliotibial band release. Postoperatively, they had longer PACU stays (90.5 vs 75.1 minutes) and higher first PACU pain scores (5.9 vs 4.6), as well as higher rates of postoperative injection (18.1 vs 9.2%), any reoperation (13.9% vs 4.6%), and revision hip arthroscopy (11.1% vs. 3.7%). Diagnoses of depression, anxiety, or both were independently predictive of any reoperation (odds ratio [OR] = 2.841) and revision hip arthroscopy (OR = 3.401). Conclusion: This retrospective cohort study found that, in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAIS, there was an association between a diagnosis of depression, anxiety, or both, and increased comorbidities, higher first PACU pain scores, longer PACU stays, and increased rates of postoperative injection, any reoperation, or revision hip arthroscopy. Targeted interventions may improve outcomes, but further study is warranted.

Ultrasound-guided injection of the hip: Cadaveric description for the lateral approach.

Ultrasound (US)-guided intraarticular hip joint injections are commonly performed using an in-plane anterior approach, which has several limitations. To describe and report a "lateral" (lateral to medial) approach for US-guided intraarticular hip injection. Cadaveric investigation. Academic institution, department of anatomy. One cadaveric specimen. Both hips of a single cadaver were injected using the US-guided lateral approach. In the left hip, the needle was inserted and kept in situ. The right hip was injected with white-colored water-diluted latex dye. Subsequently, a layer-by-layer anatomical dissection was performed. Presence and distribution of latex dye and location of needle tip within the joint capsule of the hip. Anatomical dissection of the left and right hips confirmed the correct intraarticular position of the needle tip and the placement of the latex dye, respectively. During layer-by-layer dissection of the left hip, positions of the lateral cutaneous nerve and the lateral circumflex femoral artery were observed anterior to the needle, 30 mm for the nerve and 8 mm for the artery. This preliminary study demonstrated that the US-guided lateral approach is a convenient technique to access the hip joint in a cadaveric specimen. Compared with the "classical" anterior technique, the lateral approach may provide several advantages, including improved needle visibility, theoretically decreased risk of vascular injury, and less risk of needle contamination. Because injury to the lateral epiphyseal arteries is possible when lateral approach is used, caution is required, especially in children. These preliminary conclusions will need to be validated in future/larger clinical studies.

The Effect of a Formal Nonoperative Management Program Combining a Hip Injection With Structured Adjunctive Exercise Rehabilitation in Patients With Symptomatic Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

Background: Although the initial treatment recommendations for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) may include nonsurgical therapies such as injections and rehabilitation, many patients undergo isolated injections or a rudimentary exercise regimen. Purpose: To investigate the benefit of an intra-articular hip injection and concomitant structured exercise rehabilitation program in patients with symptomatic FAIS ≥6 months. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: For this study we recruited 49 patients with a mean age of 32.8 years (range, 16-56 years) and symptoms ≥6 months (range, 6-250 months) associated with FAIS, as confirmed via magnetic resonance imaging and radiography. After a guided intra-articular injection of corticosteroid and local anesthetic, patients underwent a structured 12-week rehabilitation program. Patients were assessed before and after injection (8 weeks and 4, 6, 12, and 24 months) with a range of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the 33-item International Hip Outcome Tool, Hip Outcome Score, modified Harris Hip Score, the Tegner Activity Score, a visual analog scale assessing the frequency and severity of hip pain, and a Global Rating of Change scale. Range of motion, peak isometric hip strength, and hop tests were assessed. Absolute scores and limb symmetry indices were calculated. The percentage of patients transitioning toward surgery over the period was evaluated. Results: Of the 44 patients who underwent the injection and completed the initial 8-week rehabilitation component, 14 (31.8%) progressed toward surgical intervention over the 24-month postinjection period owing to dissatisfaction and/or symptom recurrence. Patients who progressed toward surgery, as compared with those who did not, reported significantly worse (P < .05) PROMs presurgery and more pain within the first 4 weeks after injection. In the nonoperative cohort, a significant improvement (P < .05) in all PROMs was observed, with 93% of these patients satisfied overall. The Global Rating of Change did not improve, although this was measured only after the injection, reflecting no further significant perceived global change from 8 weeks to 24 months. A significant increase (P < .05) in all hip range of motion and most isometric strength measures was observed at 8 weeks after injection, with these improvements largely sustained until 24 months. Bilateral improvements in hop capacity were observed, with hop test LSIs significantly improving for the single (p = 0.009), triple (p = 0.029) and triple crossover (p = 0.005) hop tests for distance. Conclusion: Although 32% of patients progressed toward surgery, significant improvement in hip pain, symptoms, and physical function was observed in the majority of patients with symptomatic FAIS as a result of a targeted nonoperative management pathway consisting of an intra-articular injection and a structured exercise program.

Can pre-operative intraarticular injection predict pain relief after total hip arthroplasty?

BackgroundTo study if pain relief after injection and arthroplasty correlate.MethodsA retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients (n = 88; median age 64 (interquartile range (IQR) 22) years, 49 (56%) females) that received fluoroscopic-guided intra-articular hip injection with contrast agent, anaesthetic (diagnostic), and corticosteroid (therapeutic) before implantation of primary total hip arthroplasty. Pain scores were assessed pre-injection, post-injection after 15 min (diagnostic phase) at first clinical follow up (therapeutic phase; median 2 (IQR 2) months), and postoperatively (last follow up (median 15 (IQR 5) months)). Responders had reduction in pain score ≥ 20 (numeric rating scale 0–100) points. The primary outcome was the same (or inverse) response to injection and arthroplasty.ResultsThe median pain scores were higher pre-injection (68 (IQR 30) points) compared to the diagnostic phase (18 (IQR 40) points; p < 0.001), therapeutic phase (50 (IQR 40) points; p < 0.001), and post-operatively (2 (IQR 15) points; p < 0.001). On the one hand, 69 (78%) cases had the same response in the diagnostic phase and post-operatively (rho = 0.58; p < 0.001; sensitivity 83%); on the other hand 32 (36%) cases had the same response in the therapeutic phase and post-operatively (rho = 0.25; p < 0.001; sensitivity 33%). Furthermore, 57% and 91% of patients had an even better response post-operatively than in the diagnostic and therapeutic phases.ConclusionsPre-operative intraarticular injection can predict pain relief after primary total hip arthroplasty. A positive response to hip arthroplasty may be better predicted by the response to local anaesthetic (diagnostic phase) than corticosteroids. Most patients (91%) with osteoarthritis may expect better pain relief after arthroplasty compared to the therapeutic phase after injection.

Ultrasound-guided Musculoskeletal Interventional Procedures Around the Hip: A Practical Guide.

Several studies have shown that ultrasound guidance may contribute to improved safety, effectiveness and accuracy of musculoskeletal interventional procedures performed around the hip if compared to those performed with a landmark-guided technique. Different approaches and injectates can be used for treating hip musculoskeletal disorders. These procedures may involve injections in the hip joint, periarticular bursae, tendons, and peripheral nerves. Intra-articular hip injections are mostly used as a conservative approach for treating patients affected by hip osteoarthritis. Ultrasound-guided injection of the iliopsoas bursa is performed in patients with bursitis and/or tendinopathy, to treat those with painful prosthesis due to iliopsoas impingement, or when the lidocaine test is indicated to identify the iliopsoas as a source of pain. Ultrasound-guided interventions are routinely used in patients with greater trochanteric pain syndrome having as target the gluteus medius/minimus tendons and/or the trochanteric bursae. Ultrasound-guided fenestration and platelet-rich plasma injection are applied in patients with hamstring tendinopathy with good clinical outcomes. Last but not least, ultrasound-guided perineural injections can be used for peripheral neuropathies or blocks of the sciatic, lateral femoral cutaneous, and pudendal nerves. In this paper, we discuss the evidence and technical tips for musculoskeletal interventional procedures performed around the hip, highlighting the added value of ultrasound as an imaging guidance modality.

The Influence of Body Mass Index on Radiation Dose and Exposure Time in Fluoroscopic Guided Hip Injections - A Comparative Analysis of Two Approaches.

Intra-articular hip injections (IHI) are routinely performed for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The procedure can be performed via either an anterior or a lateral approach with fluoroscopic guidance being widely practised. There is a risk of radiation exposure associated with fluoroscopy assisted IHI. This may be influenced either by the surgical approach or the patient's body mass index (BMI) or both. This study was undertaken to compare the relationships of the respective approaches to BMI, fluoroscopic exposure time (FET) and radiation dose (RD). A retrospective study was conducted comprising 74 patients who underwent IHI with 37 patients in each group (anterior and lateral). Patients were assessed pre-operatively and post operatively for any complications. The intra-operative radiation dose, fluoroscopic exposure time and BMI data were collected and analyzed. The mean age of the patients in anterior and lateral groups was 61.18±14.08 and 67.21±14.39 years respectively. No complications were noted in either group. However, there was a significant increase in FET (P=0.002) and RD (P<0.001) in patients with BMI ≥ 30. In the lateral group, this trend was markedly noted with increase in FET (P<0.001) and RD (P<0.001) in patients with BMI ≥ 30. On the other hand, in the anterior group there was no statistically significant increase in FET (P=0.155) and only a moderate increase in RD (P=0.020) in patients with BMI ≥ 30. Both anterior and lateral approaches to fluoroscopic guided IHI are equally safe in terms of complications involved. There is statistically significant increase in both radiation dose and fluoroscopic exposure time in patients with BMI ≥ 30. This is more pronounced in lateral approach. The anterior approach is most effective in reducing both radiation dose and fluoroscopic exposure time, more so in patients with BMI of 30 and above.

Anterior Electronic Hip Pain Drawings Are Helpful for Diagnosis of Intra-articular Sources of Pain: Lateral or Posterior Drawings Are Unreliable

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of electronic hip pain drawing to diagnose intra-articular source of pain in nonarthritic hips, defined by response to an intra-articular injection. A retrospective assessment was performed in consecutive patients who had an intra-articular injection completed within a 1-year period. Patients were classified as responders or nonresponders to intra-articular hip injection. A positive injection was defined as greater than 50% hip pain relief within 2 hours after injection. Electronic pain drawings collected before injection were then evaluated according to the hip region marked by the patients. Eighty-three patients were studied after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Anterior hip pain on drawing had a sensitivity of 0.69, specificity of 0.68, positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.86, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.44 for intraarticular source of pain. Posterior hip pain on drawing had a sensitivity of 0.59, specificity of 0.23, PPV of 0.68, and NPV of 0.17 for intra-articular source of pain. Lateral hip pain on drawing had a sensitivity of 0.62, specificity of 0.50, PPV of 0.78, and NPV of 0.32 for intraarticular source of pain. Anterior hip pain on electronic drawing has a sensitivity of 0.69 and specificity of 0.68 for intra-articular source of pain in nonarthritic hips. Lateral and posterior hip pain on electronic pain drawings are not reliable to rule out intra-articular hip disease. Level III, case-control study.

Ultrasound Demonstrates Potential in Identifying Proximal Femoral Morphology Before and After Cam Resection: A Cadaveric Study

<h3>Purpose</h3> (1) To compare alpha angles measured on fluoroscopy with those measured on ultrasound pre- and postosteoplasty and (2) to determine whether ultrasound can adequately assess cam deformity correction. <h3>Methods</h3> Twelve full-body specimens (20 hips) were analyzed. Images using fluoroscopy and ultrasound were captured of the operative hip with the hip in 6 consistent positions: 3 views in hip extension (neutral [N], 30° internal rotation [IR], and 30° external rotation [ER]) and 3 views in hip flexion of 50° (neutral [F-N], 40° external rotation [F-ER40], and 60° external rotation [F-ER60]). A curved-array ultrasound transducer probe was used with the transducer placed in line with the femoral neck to evaluate the proximal femoral morphology. An open femoral osteoplasty using an anterior approach was performed. Fluoroscopy and ultrasound were again used to capture images with the hip in the same 6 positions. Bland–Altman plots were used to determine whether fluoroscopic and ultrasound alpha angles agreed at each position. Independent <i>t</i>-tests were used to compare the alpha angles between the 2 modalities at each position, and paired <i>t</i>-tests were used to compare preoperative and postoperative alpha angles at each position. <h3>Results</h3> No significant differences between the alpha angle on fluoroscopy and ultrasound at all 6 positions were appreciated preosteoplasty. The mean preoperative alpha angle on ultrasound in each position was as follows: N (55.4° ± 5.9° vs 43.0° ± 2.1°), IR (55.1° ± 5.3° vs 43.9° ± 5.5°), ER (58.6° ± 5.6° vs 42.8° ± 3.0°), F-N (53.9° ± 5.5° vs 41.6° ± 3.3°), F-ER40 (55.5° ± 4.6° vs 41.5° ± 2.7°), and F-ER60 (57.9° ± 6.5° vs 41.2° ± 4.2°). The mean preoperative and postoperative alpha angle on fluoroscopy in each position were as follows: N (56.0 ± 12.8° vs 43.1 ± 2.1°), IR (54.1 ± 13.4° vs 41.9 ± 2.9°), ER (61.2 ± 11.0° vs 44.2 ± 1.9°), F-N (57.9 ± 10.6° vs 44.0 ± 2.3°), F-ER40 (59 ± 8.2° vs 42 ± 2.2°), and F-ER60 (55 ± 7.6° vs 41.1 ± 2.6°). Postosteoplasty, there was no significant difference between the mean alpha angle on fluoroscopy versus ultrasound in any position except F-N (44.0 ± 2.3 vs 41.6 ± 3.3, <i>P</i> = .015). Bland–Altman plots showed a high level of agreement between alpha angle values on fluoroscopy and ultrasound at all positions pre- and postosteoplasty. There was a significant reduction in alpha angle measured on ultrasound and fluoroscopy at each position following osteoplasty. There were no significant differences in the delta of the pre- and postosteoplasty alpha angle measurements between fluoroscopy and ultrasound. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Ultrasound is a useful tool for assessing a cam deformity in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and for determining adequate resection of a cam deformity intraoperatively. <h3>Clinical Relevance</h3> Due to the inherent limitations and risks of the fluoroscopy, it is worth evaluating other nonionizing imaging modalities. Ultrasound has potential to be an accessible, cost-effective, and safe imaging modality that lacks radiation and is commonly used for intra-articular hip injections and dynamic examination of the hip.

Intra-articular Hip Injections Prior to Total Hip Arthroplasty: Infection and Cost-Related Associations.

Intra-articular injections prior to total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been associated with postoperative infections. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a temporal relationship exists between hip injections prior to THA and infection. Specifically, we asked (1) Do patients who receive hip injections within 3 months of THA have a higher incidence of prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) or surgical site infections (SSIs)? and (2) Do these patients incur higher 90-day costs? Patients with hip injections prior to THA were identified using a national database from 2010 to 2019. Three laterality-specific groups (injection 0 to 3 months, 3 to 6 months, and 6 to 12 months prior to THA)were compared with a matched cohort without prior injection (n=277,841). Primary outcomes included PJIs, SSIs, and costs. Patients who had injections within 3 months of THA had a higher incidence of PJIs at 90 days (5.1% vs 1.6%, P<.01) and 1 year (6.8% vs 2.1%, P<.01), when compared with the matched cohort. They also had a higher incidence of SSIs at 90 days (2.8% vs 1.2%, P<.01) and 1 year (3.7% vs 1.7%, P<.01). Mean costs were 13.7% higher in this injection cohort. Patients who had injections between 3 and 6 months prior to THA had higher incidence and odds of postoperative PJIs at 90 days (2.6% vs 1.6%, P<.04), whereas those with injections beyond 6 months had no differences in PJIs (P≥.46). Patients who receive hip injections within 3 months of undergoing primary THA are at increased risk for postoperative PJIs, SSIs, and higher costs. This study reaffirms guidelines for when to perform THAs in these populations. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(1):19-26.].

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

Objective: This study aims to quantify the prevalence of destructive hip disease following intra-articular corticosteroid hip injections. Study design: A retrospective study Place and duration of study: Department of Orthopaedic, Khyber Teaching Hospital Peshawar during the period from January, 2022 to June, 2022. Methods: This study was conducted on two hundred cases of corticosteroid injection treatment. For finding the frequency of destructive hip disease, the radiological imaging was used. Patients were compared with their clinical, paraclinical, and demographic data. Observations of pain, joint mobility, and radiographic evaluation served as the foundation for the recently suggested clinico-radiological diagnostic criteria. The inter- and intraobserver reliability of the radiological grading system was evaluated. For statistical analysis, SPSS-20 was employed.. Results: From the total 200 cases, patients with POH were 80(40%), with RPOH were 20(10%), with femoral head avascular necrosis were 20(10%) and with secondary osteoarthritis of hip were 40(20%), patients went for THA were 90%. There were 30% males and 160% females with mean age of 53.9 ±3.3 and BMI &gt;32. The corticosteroidal injection of 40mg triamcinolone-acetonide with 4 mL 1% lidocaine was placed in 21(77.8%). Conclusion: An elevated chance of quickly degenerative hip disease can result from intra-articular corticosteroid hip injection. Hip injections with intra-articular corticosteroids are probably not as safe as we had believed. Hip injections should only be used when absolutely necessary, and their usage should be reduced. Before administering a large and repeated dose of corticosteroids, the patient should also be warned about the possibility of the condition progressing faster. Keywords: RDHD, intra-articular corticosteroid hip injection, frequency.