Dataset Information

Ultrasound-Guided Knee Injections Are More Accurate Than Blind Injections: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To review the current literature to determine which injection technique and needle portal placement provide the greatest accuracy for intra-articular access to the knee.

Methods

This study followed Preferred Reporting Items and Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in March 2020 and repeated in May 2020 using electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. Data on the accuracy of intra-articular knee injection (successful injections/total number of injections) were collected. Only Level I studies were included. Study design, demographic variables, needle sizes, and method of validating accuracy were recorded. The Jadad score was used to assess methodologic quality, and a risk-of-bias assessment was performed.

Results

A total of 12 Level I human studies (1431 patients, 1315 knees) were included in this review. Seven of the studies did a direct comparison between ultrasound-guided and blind knee injections. Ultrasound-guided injections were more accurate compared with blinded knee injections in every study. The most accurate anatomical approach was an isometric quadricep contraction method with the superolateral approach.

Conclusions

This study showed that ultrasound-guided knee injections were more accurate across every anatomical needle injection site compared with blind injections. Injections made by a blind/anatomically guided method had inconsistent accuracy rates that seemed highly dependent on the portal of entry.

Level of evidence

Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.

SUBMITTER: Fang WH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8365196 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) accounts for around 50 % of all cases of shoulder pain. The most commonly used treatments are glucocorticosteroid (steroid) injections and exercise therapy; however, despite treatment SAPS patients often experience relapse of their symptoms. Therefore the clinical effect of combining steroid and exercise therapy is highly relevant to clarify. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate if exercise therapy added to steroid injection in patients with SAPS will improve the effect of the injection therapy on shoulder pain.In this two-arm randomized trial running over 26 weeks, patients with unilateral shoulder pain (>?4 weeks) and thickened subacromial bursa (>?2 mm on US) were included. At baseline all participants received two steroid injections into the painful shoulder with an interval of one week. Subsequently they were randomized (1:1) to either 10 weeks exercise of the involved shoulder (intervention group) or exercise of the uninvolved shoulder (control group). The patients were re-examined after the exercise program (at week 13) and again at week 26. The primary outcome assessed after 26 weeks was change in shoulder pain analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle (non-responder imputation).Ninety-nine SAPS patients (58 female) participated (49 intervention/50 control). At both follow up visits (week 13 and 26) no statistically significant between-group differences in pain changes on a visual analog scale (mm) were seen (13 weeks: pain at rest 1.7 (95 % CI -3.6 to 7.0; P?=?0.53); pain in activity 2.2 (95 % CI -6.5 to 10.9; P?=?0.61), 26 weeks: rest 5.6 (95 % CI -0.9 to 12.1; P?=?0.09); activity 2.2 (95 % CI -6.8 to 11.2; P?=?0.62). The reduction in pain was most evident in the control group at all four pain measurements. The only difference between groups was seen by US examination at week 13, where fewer participants with impingement were observed in the intervention group compared with the controls (9 vs. 19 participants; P?=?0.03).Exercise therapy in the painful shoulder in SAPS patients did not improve the effectiveness of steroid injections for shoulder pain in patients with unilateral SAPS and enlarged subacromial bursa on US examination.ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01506804 ). Registration date 5 May 2011.

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of process interventions (education for clinicians, parent presence, education of parents [before and on day of vaccination], and education of patients on day of vaccination) on reducing vaccination pain, fear, and distress and increasing the use of interventions during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Critical outcomes were pain, fear, distress (when applicable), and use of pain management interventions. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, combinations of these) and pooled using established methods. Analyses were conducted using standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR).ResultsThirteen studies were included. Results were generally mixed. On the basis of low to very low-quality evidence, the following specific critical outcomes showed significant effects suggesting: (1) clinicians should be educated about vaccine injection pain management (use of interventions: SMD 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47, 0.85); (2) parents should be present (distress preprocedure: SMD -0.85; 95% CI: -1.35, -0.35); (3) parents should be educated before the vaccination day (use of intervention preprocedure: SMD 0.83; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.41 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.86; distress acute: SMD, -0.35; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.13); (4) parents should be educated on the vaccination day (use of interventions: SMD 1.02; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.83 and RR, 2.42; 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99; distress preprocedure+acute+recovery: SMD -0.48; 95% CI: -0.82, -0.15); and (5) individuals 3 years of age and above should be educated on the day of vaccination (fear preprocedure: SMD -0.67; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.07).ConclusionsEducating individuals involved in the vaccination procedure (clinicians, parents of children being vaccinated; individuals above 3 y of age) is beneficial to increase use of pain management strategies, reduce distress surrounding with vaccination, and to reduce fear. When possible, parent presence is also recommended for children undergoing vaccination.

Project description:BackgroundPost-traumatic headaches (PTH) are a common sequelae of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and greatly impact patient function and quality of life. Post-traumatic greater occipital neuralgia (GON) is a type of post-traumatic headache. Conventional treatment includes steroid/anesthetic injections which typically alleviate pain but have a short duration of effect. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an emerging biological treatment for numerous degenerative disorders, including peripheral nerve disorders. The primary aim of this pilot study is to evaluate whether a randomized control trial of PRP for the treatment of GON in patients with post-traumatic headaches is feasible in regard to recruitment, adherence, retention, and adherence and adverse events. Exploratory aims include improvement in pain, function, and quality of life in patients with post-traumatic GON receiving PRP compared to steroid/anesthetic and normal saline injections.MethodsThirty adults (over 18 years of age) with post-traumatic GON will be randomized into one of three groups: (1) autologous PRP injection, (2) steroid/anesthetic injection (standard care), or (3) placebo injection with normal saline. Injections will be performed to the greater occipital nerve under ultrasound guidance by a trained physician. Daily headache intensity and frequency data will be collected pre-injection and for the duration of the study period. Feasibility will be defined as greater than 30% recruitment, 70% completion of intervention, 70% retention, and less than 2 minor adverse events. Exploratory outcomes will be explored using the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6, a valid and reliable 6-item questionnaire for assessment of the impact of headaches across different diagnostic groups of headaches) and the quality of life in following brain injury questionnaire (QOILIBRI).DiscussionThis pilot study will be the first to evaluate the feasibility of PRP as a potential treatment of GON in patients with post-traumatic headache.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov - NCT04051203 (registered August 9, 2019).

Project description:Transforaminal steroid injection is extensively used as a treatment in cases of herniated disc, but it is associated with complications. In comparison, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection has been used in musculoskeletal disorders and could be another option. This study is aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety aspects between ultrasound-guided transforaminal injections of PRP and steroid in patients who suffer from radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation. In a randomized controlled trial, ultrasound-guided transforaminal injections of either PRP (n = 61) or steroid (n = 63) were administered to a total of 124 patients who suffer from radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation. Patients were assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS), pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the physical function (PF) and bodily pain (BP) domains of the 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) before operation and 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation. The rate and latency of F-wave were obtained before operation and 12 months postoperation. There was no statistical difference in terms of age and sex between both groups. Statistically significant improvements from the patients' data before operation to data obtained 1-month postoperation were observed in VAS, PPTs, ODI, and PF and BP of SF-36 in both groups and kept for 1 year. F-wave rate and latency were improved significantly at 1-year postoperation in both groups. Intergroup differences during follow-ups over a period of 1 year were not found to be significant in all the above assessment between the PRP and steroid groups. No complications were reported. The results showed similar outcome for both transforaminal injections using PRP and steroid in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, suggesting the possible application of PRP injection as a safer alternative. The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-INR-17011825).

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of physical and procedural interventions for reducing pain and related outcomes during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, and combinations of these) and pooled using established methods.ResultsA total of 31 studies were included. Acute infant distress was diminished during intramuscular injection without aspiration (n=313): standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.18, -0.46). Injecting the most painful vaccine last during vaccinations reduced acute infant distress (n=196): SMD -0.69 (95% CI: -0.98, -0.4). Simultaneous injections reduced acute infant distress compared with sequential injections (n=172): SMD -0.56 (95% CI: -0.87, -0.25). There was no benefit of simultaneous injections in children. Less infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined occurred with vastus lateralis (vs. deltoid) injections (n=185): SMD -0.70 (95% CI: -1.00, -0.41). Skin-to-skin contact in neonates (n=736) reduced acute distress: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.05, -0.25). Holding infants reduced acute distress after removal of the data from 1 methodologically diverse study (n=107): SMD -1.25 (95% CI: -2.05, -0.46). Holding after vaccination (n=417) reduced infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.08, -0.22). Self-reported fear was reduced for children positioned upright (n=107): SMD -0.39 (95% CI: -0.77, -0.01). Non-nutritive sucking (n=186) reduced acute distress in infants: SMD -1.88 (95% CI: -2.57, -1.18). Manual tactile stimulation did not reduce pain across the lifespan. An external vibrating device and cold reduced pain in children (n=145): SMD -1.23 (95% CI: -1.58, -0.87). There was no benefit of warming the vaccine in adults. Muscle tension was beneficial in selected indices of fainting in adolescents and adults.ConclusionsInterventions with evidence of benefit in select populations include: no aspiration, injecting most painful vaccine last, simultaneous injections, vastus lateralis injection, positioning interventions, non-nutritive sucking, external vibrating device with cold, and muscle tension.

Project description:Arterial hypertension (AH) may be related to fluid retention, increased vascular resistance or hyperdynamic heart function. Impedance cardiography (ICG) is shown to be useful in the individualization of antihypertensive therapy but little is known about who most benefits from this therapeutic approach. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the effectiveness of ICG-guided antihypertensive therapy with respect to baseline blood pressure (BP) from the perspective of 12 weeks' observation in randomized, prospective and controlled trials.This analysis involved 272 patients (average age: 44.1 ± 10.8 years) with AH. After baseline evaluation, including: office BP measurement (systolic, SBP; diastolic, DBP; mean, MBP) and ambulatory BP monitoring (mean 24-h SBP, mean 24-h DBP) the subjects were randomly assigned to groups of empiric [GE] and ICG-guided antihypertensive therapy [HD]. The results were evaluated separately in subgroups derived from median of MBP (110 mmHg): with slightly increased ('SI_BP') and more increased BP ('MI_BP'). The comparative analysis included absolute change in BP (d_OSBP, d_ODBP, d_24-h SBP, d_24-h DBP) and the percentage of patients with reduction of BP ? 10 mmHg (d10_OSBP, d10_ODBP, d10_24-h SBP, d10_24-h DBP).ICG-guided therapy was shown to be superior to the empiric approach, especially in MI_BP. In this subgroup, the BP reduction in HD was higher than in GE: d_OSBP (23.3 ± 10.8 versus 18.5 ± 13.9 mmHg; p = 0.035), d_ODBP (16.0 ± 6.3 versus 11.6 ± 9.6 mmHg; p = 0.003), d_24-h SBP (17.7 ± 10.8 versus 13.1 ± 13.1 mmHg; p = 0.035). This benefit was also confirmed by a higher percentage of patients with significant BP reduction: d10_OSBP (87.7% versus 69.1%; p = 0.012), d10_ODBP (69.2% versus 47.3%; p = 0.012) and d10_24-h SBP (72.3% versus 52.7%; p = 0.012). The comparison in the SI_BP subgroup did not reveal such significant differences.The hemodynamically guided pharmacotherapy results in greater BP reduction. This effect is more pronounced in patients with higher baseline BP, while in those with slightly increased BP the empiric approach seems comparable to ICG.