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.

Percutaneous screw fixation of the iliosacral joint: optimal screw pathways are frequently not completely intraosseous

INTRODUCTION In iliosacral screw fixation, the dimensions of solely intraosseous (secure) pathways, perpendicular to the ilio-sacral articulation (optimal) with corresponding entry (EP) and aiming points (AP) on lateral fluoroscopic projections, and the factors (demographic, anatomic) influencing these have not yet been described. METHODS In 100 CTs of normal pelvises, the height and width of the secure and optimal pathways were measured on axial and coronal views bilaterally (total measurements: n=200). Corresponding EP and AP were defined as either the location of the screw head or tip at the crossing of lateral innominate bones' cortices (EP) and sacral midlines (AP) within the centre of the pathway, respectively. EP and AP were transferred to the sagittal pelvic view using a coordinate system with the zero-point in the centre of the posterior cortex of the S1 vertebral body (x-axis parallel to upper S1 endplate). Distances are expressed in relation to the anteroposterior distance of the S1 upper endplate (in %). The influence of demographic (age, gender, side) and/or anatomic (PIA=pelvic incidence angle; TCA=transversal curvature angle, PID-Index=pelvic incidence distance-index; USW=unilateral sacral width-index) parameters on pathway dimensions and positions of EP and AP were assessed (multivariate analysis). RESULTS The width, height or both factors of the pathways were at least 7mm or more in 32% and 53% or 20%, respectively. The EP was on average 14±24% behind the centre of the posterior S1 cortex and 41±14% below it. The AP was on average 53±7% in the front of the centre of the posterior S1 cortex and 11±7% above it. PIA influenced the width, TCA, PID-Index the height of the pathways. PIA, PID-Index, and USW-Index significantly influenced EP and AP. Age, gender, and TCA significantly influenced EP. CONCLUSION Secure and optimal placement of screws of at least 7mm in diameter will be unfeasible in the majority of patients. Thoughtful preoperative planning of screw placement on CT scans is advisable to identify secure pathways with an optimal direction. For this purpose, the presented methodology of determining and transferring EPs and APs of corresponding pathways to the sagittal pelvic view using a coordinate system may be useful.

Driving and emergency braking may be impaired after tibiotalar joint arthrodesis: conclusions after a case series.

PURPOSE To assess whether reaction time (RT) and movement time (MT), as the two components of the total brake response time (TBRT) and brake force (BF) are different in patients with a foot joint arthrodesis in comparison to controls. METHODS The study was a comparative case series in a driving simulator under realistic driving conditions. Mobile patients without a walker, ≥6 months after surgery who were driving a car and had no neurological co-morbidity, knee or hip joint prosthesis were included in the study. The selection criteria resulted in 12 patients with right tibiotalar joint arthrodesis (TTJA) and 12 patients with another right foot joint arthrodesis (OFJA), who were compared to 17 individuals without any ankle-joint pathology. For TBRT, an empirical safe driving threshold of 700 ms was used. The outcome measures were RT, MT, TBRT, BF and McGuire score. RESULTS MT (p = 0.034) and TBRT (p = 0.026) were longer in TTJA patients in comparison with the controls. Also, more patients with TTJA than patients with OFJA and controls exceeded the safe driving threshold (p = 0.028). The outcomes in OFJA patients and in controls were comparable. The McGuire score was similar between the TTJA and OFJA patients (p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS Significantly slower MT and TBRT, and significantly more patients exceeding the safe driving threshold, were observed after a tibiotalar-joint arthrodesis in comparison to the controls. Patients with OFJAs were not significantly different from the controls. Driving and emergency braking may be impaired after tibiotalar-joint arthrodesis.