Intra-articular corticosteroid for knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of chronic pain, disability, and decreased quality of life. Despite the long-standing use of intra-articular corticosteroids, there is an ongoing debate about their benefits and safety. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES To determine the benefits and harms of intra-articular corticosteroids compared with sham or no intervention in people with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain, physical function, quality of life, and safety. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE (from inception to 3 February 2015), checked trial registers, conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham injection or no treatment in people with knee osteoarthritis. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain, function, quality of life, joint space narrowing, and risk ratios (RRs) for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS We identified 27 trials (13 new studies) with 1767 participants in this update. We graded the quality of the evidence as 'low' for all outcomes because treatment effect estimates were inconsistent with great variation across trials, pooled estimates were imprecise and did not rule out relevant or irrelevant clinical effects, and because most trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Intra-articular corticosteroids appeared to be more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.22), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 1.0 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale between corticosteroids and sham injection and translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 (95% CI 6 to 13). An I(2) statistic of 68% indicated considerable between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested some asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -1.21, 95%CI -3.58 to 1.17). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.21), small at 13 weeks (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00), and no evidence of an effect at 26 weeks (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.11). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 63% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.001), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.43). There was evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.05) or at least 100 participants per group (P=0.013), in trials that used concomittant viscosupplementation (P=0.08), and in trials that used concomitant joint lavage (P≤0.001).Corticosteroids appeared to be more effective in function improvement than control interventions (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.09), which corresponds to a difference in functions scores of -0.7 units on standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10 and translates into a NNTB of 10 (95% CI 7 to 33). An I(2) statistic of 69% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -4.07, 95% CI -8.08 to -0.05). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were small to moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.14), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.09), and no evidence of an effect at 13 weeks (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.10) or at 26 weeks (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.28). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 62% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.004), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.52). We found evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.023), in unpublished trials (P=0.023), in trials that used non-intervention controls (P=0.031), and in trials that used concomitant viscosupplementation (P=0.06).Participants on corticosteroids were 11% less likely to experience adverse events, but confidence intervals included the null effect (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.23, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 67% less likely to withdraw because of adverse events, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.07, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 27% less likely to experience any serious adverse event, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.67, I(2)=0%).We found no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on quality of life compared to control (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.28, I(2)=0%). There was also no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on joint space narrowing compared to control interventions (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.46). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Whether there are clinically important benefits of intra-articular corticosteroids after one to six weeks remains unclear in view of the overall quality of the evidence, considerable heterogeneity between trials, and evidence of small-study effects. A single trial included in this review described adequate measures to minimise biases and did not find any benefit of intra-articular corticosteroids.In this update of the systematic review and meta-analysis, we found most of the identified trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham or non-intervention control small and hampered by low methodological quality. An analysis of multiple time points suggested that effects decrease over time, and our analysis provided no evidence that an effect remains six months after a corticosteroid injection.

A new universal, standardized implant database for product identification: a unique tool for arthroplasty registries.

INTRODUCTION Every joint registry aims to improve patient care by identifying implants that have an inferior performance. For this reason, each registry records the implant name that has been used in the individual patient. In most registries, a paper-based approach has been utilized for this purpose. However, in addition to being time-consuming, this approach does not account for the fact that failure patterns are not necessarily implant specific but can be associated with design features that are used in a number of implants. Therefore, we aimed to develop and evaluate an implant product library that allows both time saving barcode scanning on site in the hospital for the registration of the implant components and a detailed description of implant specifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS A task force consisting of representatives of the German Arthroplasty Registry, industry, and computer specialists agreed on a solution that allows barcode scanning of implant components and that also uses a detailed standardized classification describing arthroplasty components. The manufacturers classified all their components that are sold in Germany according to this classification. The implant database was analyzed regarding the completeness of components by algorithms and real-time data. RESULTS The implant library could be set up successfully. At this point, the implant database includes more than 38,000 items, of which all were classified by the manufacturers according to the predefined scheme. Using patient data from the German Arthroplasty Registry, several errors in the database were detected, all of which were corrected by the respective implant manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS The implant library that was developed for the German Arthroplasty Registry allows not only on-site barcode scanning for the registration of the implant components but also its classification tree allows a sophisticated analysis regarding implant characteristics, regardless of brand or manufacturer. The database is maintained by the implant manufacturers, thereby allowing registries to focus their resources on other areas of research. The database might represent a possible global model, which might encourage harmonization between joint replacement registries enabling comparisons between joint replacement registries.

Is a Revision a Revision? An Analysis of National Arthroplasty Registries' Definitions of Revision.

BACKGROUND The reported survival of implants depends on the definition used for the endpoint, usually revision. When screening through registry reports from different countries, it appears that revision is defined quite differently. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES The purposes of this study were to compare the definitions of revision among registry reports and to apply common clinical scenarios to these definitions. METHODS We downloaded or requested reports of all available national joint registries. Of the 23 registries we identified, 13 had published reports that were available in English and were beyond the pilot phase. We searched these registries' reports for the definitions of the endpoint, mostly revision. We then applied the following scenarios to the definition of revision and analyzed if those scenarios were regarded as a revision: (A) wound revision without any addition or removal of implant components (such as hematoma evacuation); (B) exchange of head and/or liner (like for infection); (C) isolated secondary patella resurfacing; and (D) secondary patella resurfacing with a routine liner exchange. RESULTS All registries looked separately at the characteristic of primary implantation without a revision and 11 of 13 registers reported on the characteristics of revisions. Regarding the definition of revision, there were considerable differences across the reports. In 11 of 13 reports, the primary outcome was revision of the implant. In one registry the primary endpoint was "reintervention/revision" while another registry reported separately on "failure" and "reoperations". In three registries, the definition of the outcome was not provided, however in one report a results list gave an indication for the definition of the outcome. Wound revision without any addition or removal of implant components (scenario A) was considered a revision in three of nine reports that provided a clear definition on this question, whereas two others did not provide enough information to allow this determination. Exchange of the head and/or liner (like for infection; scenario B) was considered a revision in 11 of 11; isolated secondary patella resurfacing (scenario C) in six of eight; and secondary patella resurfacing with routine liner exchange (scenario D) was considered a revision in nine of nine reports. CONCLUSIONS Revision, which is the most common main endpoint used by arthroplasty registries, is not universally defined. This implies that some reoperations that are considered a revision in one registry are not considered a revision in another registry. Therefore, comparisons of implant performance using data from different registries have to be performed with caution. We suggest that registries work to harmonize their definitions of revision to help facilitate comparisons of results across the world's arthroplasty registries.

2D-3D Reconstruction-Based Planning of Total Hip Arthroplasty

This chapter proposed a personalized X-ray reconstruction-based planning and post-operative treatment evaluation framework called iJoint for advancing modern Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). Based on a mobile X-ray image calibration phantom and a unique 2D-3D reconstruction technique, iJoint can generate patient-specific models of hip joint by non-rigidly matching statistical shape models to the X-ray radiographs. Such a reconstruction enables a true 3D planning and treatment evaluation of hip arthroplasty from just 2D X-ray radiographs whose acquisition is part of the standard diagnostic and treatment loop. As part of the system, a 3D model-based planning environment provides surgeons with hip arthroplasty related parameters such as implant type, size, position, offset and leg length equalization. With this newly developed system, we are able to provide true 3D solutions for computer assisted planning of THA using only 2D X-ray radiographs, which is not only innovative but also cost-effective.

Mapping tibiofemoral gonarthrosis: an MRI analysis of non-traumatic knee cartilage defects

OBJECTIVE Arthroscopy is "the gold standard" for the diagnosis of knee cartilage lesions. However, it is invasive and expensive, and displays all the potential complications of an open surgical procedure. Ultra-high-field MRI now offers good opportunities for the indirect assessment of the integrity and structural changes of joint cartilage of the knee. The goal of the present study is to determine the site of early cartilaginous lesions in adults with non-traumatic knee pain. METHODS 3-T MRI examinations of 200 asymptomatic knees with standard and three-dimensional double-echo steady-state (3D-DESS) cartilage-specific sequences were prospectively studied for early degenerative lesions of the tibiofemoral joint. Lesions were classified and mapped using the modified Outerbridge and modified International Cartilage Repair Society classifications. RESULTS A total of 1437 lesions were detected: 56.1% grade I, 33.5% grade II, 7.2% grade III and 3.3% grade IV. Cartographically, grade I lesions were most common in the anteromedial tibial areas; grade II lesions in the anteromedial L5 femoral areas; and grade III in the centromedial M2 femoral areas. CONCLUSION 3-T MRI with standard and 3D-DESS cartilage-specific sequences demonstrated that areas predisposed to early osteoarthritis are the central, lateral and ventromedial tibial plateau, as well as the central and medial femoral condyle. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE In contrast with previous studies reporting early cartilaginous lesions in the medial tibial compartment and/or in the medial femoral condyle, this study demonstrates that, regardless of grade, lesions preferentially occur at the L5 and M4 tibial and L5 and L2 femoral areas of the knee joint.

Accuracy of cartilage-specific 3-Tesla 3D-DESS magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of chondral lesions: comparison with knee arthroscopy

BACKGROUND Arthroscopy is considered as "the gold standard" for the diagnosis of traumatic intraarticular knee lesions. However, recent developments in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) now offer good opportunities for the indirect assessment of the integrity and structural changes of the knee articular cartilage. The study was to investigate whether cartilage-specific sequences on a 3-Tesla MRI provide accurate assessment for the detection of cartilage defects. METHODS A 3-Tesla (3-T) MRI combined with three-dimensional double-echo steady-state (3D-DESS) cartilage specific sequences was performed on 210 patients with knee pain prior to knee arthroscopy. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of magnetic resonance imaging were calculated and correlated to the arthroscopic findings of cartilaginous lesions. Lesions were classified using the modified Outerbridge classification. RESULTS For the 210 patients (1260 cartilage surfaces: patella, trochlea, medial femoral condyle, medial tibia, lateral femoral condyle, lateral tibia) evaluated, the sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of 3-T MRI were 83.3, 99.8, 84.4, and 99.8 %, respectively, for the detection of grade IV lesions; 74.1, 99.6, 85.2, and 99.3 %, respectively, for grade III lesions; 67.9, 99.2, 76.6, and 98.2 %, respectively, for grade II lesions; and 8.8, 99.5, 80, and 92 %, respectively, for grade I lesions. CONCLUSIONS For grade III and IV lesions, 3-T MRI combined with 3D-DESS cartilage-specific sequences represents an accurate diagnostic tool. For grade II lesions, the technique demonstrates moderate sensitivity, while for grade I lesions, the sensitivity is limited to provide reliable diagnosis compared to knee arthroscopy.

Magnetic resonance tomography of the knee joint

OBJECTIVES To compare the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in terms of sensitivity and specificity using a field strength of <1.0 T (T) versus ≥1.5 T for diagnosing or ruling out knee injuries or knee pathologies. METHODS The systematic literature research revealed more than 10,000 references, of which 1598 abstracts were reviewed and 87 full-text articles were retrieved. The further selection process resulted in the inclusion of four systematic reviews and six primary studies. RESULTS No differences could be identified in the diagnostic performance of low- versus high-field MRI for the detection or exclusion of meniscal or cruciate ligament tears. Regarding the detection or grading of cartilage defects and osteoarthritis of the knee, the existing evidence suggests that high-field MRI is tolerably specific but not very sensitive, while there is literally no evidence for low-field MRI because only a few studies with small sample sizes and equivocal findings have been performed. CONCLUSIONS We can recommend the use of low-field strength MRI systems in suspected meniscal or cruciate ligament injuries. This does, however, not apply to the diagnosis and grading of knee cartilage defects and osteoarthritis because of insufficient evidence.

Management of pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty: a review of the literature

Pelvic discontinuity is a complex problem in revision total hip arthroplasty. Although rare, the incidence is likely to increase due to the ageing population and the increasing number of total hip arthroplasties being performed. The various surgical options available to solve this problem include plating, massive allografts, reconstruction rings, custom triflanged components and tantalum implants. However, the optimal solution remains controversial. None of the known methods completely solves the major obstacles associated with this problem, such as restoration of massive bone loss, implant failure in the short- and long-term and high complication rates. This review discusses the diagnosis, decision making, and treatment options of pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the backbone of osteoarthritis pain management. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different preparations and doses of NSAIDs on osteoarthritis pain in a network meta-analysis. METHODS For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomised trials comparing any of the following interventions: NSAIDs, paracetamol, or placebo, for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of relevant articles for trials published between Jan 1, 1980, and Feb 24, 2015, with at least 100 patients per group. The prespecified primary and secondary outcomes were pain and physical function, and were extracted in duplicate for up to seven timepoints after the start of treatment. We used an extension of multivariable Bayesian random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons with a random effect at the level of trials. For the primary analysis, a random walk of first order was used to account for multiple follow-up outcome data within a trial. Preparations that used different total daily dose were considered separately in the analysis. To assess a potential dose-response relation, we used preparation-specific covariates assuming linearity on log relative dose. FINDINGS We identified 8973 manuscripts from our search, of which 74 randomised trials with a total of 58 556 patients were included in this analysis. 23 nodes concerning seven different NSAIDs or paracetamol with specific daily dose of administration or placebo were considered. All preparations, irrespective of dose, improved point estimates of pain symptoms when compared with placebo. For six interventions (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 30 mg/day, 60 mg/day, and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day), the probability that the difference to placebo is at or below a prespecified minimum clinically important effect for pain reduction (effect size [ES] -0·37) was at least 95%. Among maximally approved daily doses, diclofenac 150 mg/day (ES -0·57, 95% credibility interval [CrI] -0·69 to -0·46) and etoricoxib 60 mg/day (ES -0·58, -0·73 to -0·43) had the highest probability to be the best intervention, both with 100% probability to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Treatment effects increased as drug dose increased, but corresponding tests for a linear dose effect were significant only for celecoxib (p=0·030), diclofenac (p=0·031), and naproxen (p=0·026). We found no evidence that treatment effects varied over the duration of treatment. Model fit was good, and between-trial heterogeneity and inconsistency were low in all analyses. All trials were deemed to have a low risk of bias for blinding of patients. Effect estimates did not change in sensitivity analyses with two additional statistical models and accounting for methodological quality criteria in meta-regression analysis. INTERPRETATION On the basis of the available data, we see no role for single-agent paracetamol for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis irrespective of dose. We provide sound evidence that diclofenac 150 mg/day is the most effective NSAID available at present, in terms of improving both pain and function. Nevertheless, in view of the safety profile of these drugs, physicians need to consider our results together with all known safety information when selecting the preparation and dose for individual patients. FUNDING Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405340-104762) and Arco Foundation, Switzerland.

Total disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical interbody fusion: use of the Spine Tango registry to supplement the evidence from randomized control trials.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared patient outcomes of anterior (cervical) interbody fusion (AIF) with those of total disc arthroplasty (TDA). Because RCTs have known limitations with regard to their external validity, the comparative effectiveness of the two therapies in daily practice remains unknown. PURPOSE This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes after TDA versus AIF based on data from an international spine registry. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A retrospective analysis of registry data was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE Inclusion criteria were degenerative disc or disc herniation of the cervical spine treated by single-level TDA or AIF, no previous surgery, and a Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) completed at baseline and at least 3 months' follow-up. Overall, 987 patients were identified. OUTCOME MEASURES Neck and arm pain relief and COMI score improvement were the outcome measures. METHODS Three separate analyses were performed to compare TDA and AIF surgical outcomes: (1) mimicking an RCT setting, with admission criteria typical of those in published RCTs, a 1:1 matched analysis was carried out in 739 patients; (2) an analysis was performed on 248 patients outside the classic RCT spectrum, that is, with one or more typical RCT exclusion criteria; (3) a subgroup analysis of all patients with additional follow-up longer than 2 years (n=149). RESULTS Matching resulted in 190 pairs with an average follow-up of 17 months that had no residual significant differences for any patient characteristics. Small but statistically significant differences in outcome were observed in favor of TDA, which are potentially clinically relevant. Subgroup analyses of atypical patients and of patients with longer-term follow-up showed no significant differences in outcome between the treatments. CONCLUSIONS The results of this observational study were in accordance with those of the published RCTs, suggesting substantial pain reduction both after AIF and TDA, with slightly greater benefit after arthroplasty. The analysis of atypical patients suggested that, in patients outside the spectrum of clinical trials, both surgical interventions appeared to work to a similar extent to that shown for the cohort in the matched study. Also, in the longer-term perspective, both therapies resulted in similar benefits to the patients.