Ponctions et infiltrations articulaires [Arthrocentesis and joint infiltration]

Cet article se veut être un condensé des bases nécessaires à la pratique d'une ponction et, ou infiltration articulaire, des indications principales aux complications potentielles en passant par la description de la procédure et de ses contre-indications. La ponction du genou fait l'objet d'une description plus détaillée. Les données permettant de justifier une façon particulière de procéder ont spécifiquement été recherchées dans la littérature (Cochrane et Medline, termes de recherche : arthrocentesis ; joint aspiration). Le détail de ces données, comme par exemple le résultat d'études, ne trouve pas sa place dans ce résumé mais fait l'objet d'une publication à part. What should be known in order to practice safely a joint aspiration and/or infiltration is summarized in the following article. This summary includes various aspects, such as the indications and contraindications, the procedure itself, and the possible complications. The arthrocentesis of the knee is described in more details. Data in support of a specific modus operandi have been searched for in Cochrane and Pubmed (key words: arthrocentesis, joint aspiration). Only the conclusions of this research are exposed in this summary. A more comprehensive article will be published

Comparison of cannabinoid concentrations in oral fluid and whole blood between occasional and regular cannabis smokers prior to and after smoking a cannabis joint.

A cross-over controlled administration study of smoked cannabis was carried out on occasional and heavy smokers. The participants smoked a joint (11 % Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)) or a matching placebo on two different occasions. Whole blood (WB) and oral fluid (OF) samples were collected before and up to 3.5 h after smoking the joints. Pharmacokinetic analyses were obtained from these data. Questionnaires assessing the subjective effects were administered to the subjects during each session before and after the smoking time period. THC, 11-hydroxy-THC (11-OH-THC) and 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (THCCOOH) were analyzed in the blood by gas chromatography or liquid chromatography (LC)-tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). The determination of THC, THCCOOH, cannabinol (CBN), and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A (THC-A) was carried out on OF only using LC-MS/MS. In line with the widely accepted assumption that cannabis smoking results in a strong contamination of the oral cavity, we found that THC, and also THC-A, shows a sharp, high concentration peak just after smoking, with a rapid decrease in these levels within 3 h. No obvious differences were found between both groups concerning THC median maximum concentrations measured either in blood or in OF; these levels were equal to 1,338 and 1,041 μg/L in OF and to 82 and 94 μg/L in WB for occasional and heavy smokers, respectively. The initial WB THCCOOH concentration was much higher in regular smokers than in occasional users. Compared with the occasional smokers, the sensation of confusion felt by the regular smokers was much less while the feeling of intoxication remained almost unchanged.

Incidence and management of pulmonary embolism following spinal surgery occurring while under chemical thromboprophylaxis.

Patients undergoing spinal surgery are at risk of developing thromboembolic complications even though lower incidences have been reported as compared to joint arthroplasty surgery. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been studied extensively in the context of spinal surgery but symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) has engaged less attention. We prospectively followed a consecutive cohort of 270 patients undergoing spinal surgery at a single institution. From these patients, only 26 were simple discectomies, while the largest proportion (226) was fusions. All patients received both low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) initiated after surgery and compressive stockings. PE was diagnosed with spiral chest CT. Six patients developed symptomatic PE, five during their hospital stay. In three of the six patients the embolic event occurred during the first 3 postoperative days. They were managed by the temporary insertion of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter thus allowing for a delay in full-dose anticoagulation until removal of the filter. None of the PE patients suffered any bleeding complication as a result of the introduction of full anticoagulation. Two patients suffered postoperative haematomas, without development of neurological symptoms or signs, requiring emergency evacuation. The overall incidence of PE was 2.2% rising to 2.5% after exclusion of microdiscectomy cases. The incidence of PE was highest in anterior or combined thoracolumbar/lumbar procedures (4.2%). There is a large variation in the reported incidence of PE in the spinal literature. Results from the only study found in the literature specifically monitoring PE suggest an incidence of PE as high as 2.5%. Our study shows a similar incidence despite the use of LMWH. In the absence of randomized controlled trials (RCT) it is uncertain if this type of prophylaxis lowers the incidence of PE. However, other studies show that the morbidity of LMWH is very low. Since PE can be a life-threatening complication, LMWH may be a worthwhile option to consider for prophylaxis. RCTs are necessary in assessing the efficacy of DVT and PE prophylaxis in spinal patients.

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding prior fractures from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

The 2010 Position Development Conference addressed four questions related to the impact of previous fractures on 10-year fracture risk as calculated by FRAX(®). To address these questions, PubMed was searched on the keywords "fracture, epidemiology, osteoporosis." Titles of retrieved articles were reviewed for an indication that risk for future fracture was discussed. Abstracts of these articles were reviewed for an indication that one or more of the questions listed above was discussed. For those that did, the articles were reviewed in greater detail to extract the findings and to find additional past work and citing works that also bore on the questions. The official positions and the supporting literature review are presented here. FRAX(®) underestimates fracture probability in persons with a history of multiple fractures (good, A, W). FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in individuals with prevalent severe vertebral fractures (good, A, W). While there is evidence that hip, vertebral, and humeral fractures appear to confer greater risk of subsequent fracture than fractures at other sites, quantification of this incremental risk in FRAX(®) is not possible (fair, B, W). FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in individuals with a parental history of non-hip fragility fracture (fair, B, W). Limitations of the methodology include performance by a single reviewer, preliminary review of the literature being confined to titles, and secondary review being limited to abstracts. Limitations of the evidence base include publication bias, overrepresentation of persons of European descent in the published studies, and technical differences in the methods used to identify prevalent and incident fractures. Emerging topics for future research include fracture epidemiology in non-European populations and men, the impact of fractures in family members other than parents, and the genetic contribution to fracture risk.

Official Positions for FRAX® Bone Mineral Density and FRAX® simplification from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

Tools to predict fracture risk are useful for selecting patients for pharmacological therapy in order to reduce fracture risk and redirect limited healthcare resources to those who are most likely to benefit. FRAX® is a World Health Organization fracture risk assessment algorithm for estimating the 10-year probability of hip fracture and major osteoporotic fracture. Effective application of FRAX® in clinical practice requires a thorough understanding of its limitations as well as its utility. For some patients, FRAX® may underestimate or overestimate fracture risk. In order to address some of the common issues encountered with the use of FRAX® for individual patients, the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) assigned task forces to review the medical evidence and make recommendations for optimal use of FRAX® in clinical practice. Among the issues addressed were the use of bone mineral density (BMD) measurements at skeletal sites other than the femoral neck, the use of technologies other than dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, the use of FRAX® without BMD input, the use of FRAX® to monitor treatment, and the addition of the rate of bone loss as a clinical risk factor for FRAX®. The evidence and recommendations were presented to a panel of experts at the Joint ISCD-IOF FRAX® Position Development Conference, resulting in the development of Joint ISCD-IOF Official Positions addressing FRAX®-related issues.