Abstract
Aims
There is conflicting evidence on the safety of intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) or corticosteroids (CSs) before total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We performed a meta-analysis of the relationship between intra-articular injections and subsequent infection rates after TKA.
Methods
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for cohort studies that assessed the effect of preoperative injection of drugs into the joint cavity on the infection rate after TKA. The outcomes analyzed included the total infection rate, as well as those for different preoperative injection time periods and different drugs.
Results
Eight studies, including 73,880 in the injection group and 126,187 in the control group, met the inclusion criteria. The injection group had a significantly higher postoperative infection rate than the control group (risk ratio (RR) 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.27; p < 0.001; I2 = 32%). For patients who received injections up to three months preoperatively, the postoperative infection risk was significantly higher than that in the control group (RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.35; p＜0.001; I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference in the infection rates between the four-to-six-month injection and control groups (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.35; p = 0.240; I2 = 75%) or between the seven-to-12-month injection and control groups (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12; p = 0.600; I2 = 0%).
Conclusion
Current evidence suggests that intra-articular injections of CSs or HA before TKA increase the risk of postoperative infection. Injections administered more than three months before TKA do not significantly increase the risk of infection.
Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(3):171–179.
Article focus
-
This study evaluated the relationship between preoperative intra-articular injections and infection after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Key messages
-
Current evidence suggests that intra-articular injections of corticosteroids (CSs) or hyaluronic acid (HA) before TKA increase the risk of postoperative infection. This increased risk decreases in direct proportion to the interval between the injection and TKA; injections more than three months before TKA do not cause a significant increase in the risk of infection.
Strengths and limitations
-
The advantage of this study is that it is the first meta-analysis of the relationship between preoperative knee cavity injection and postoperative TKA infection.
-
Some articles included in this study were from large cohort studies with a large sample size, which can maximize the detection of the relationship between injection and infection.
-
Eight articles were finally included, all of which were retrospective cohort studies; therefore, confounding factors, such as the injection schedule and patient characteristics, could not be well controlled for.
-
The definition of infection in each study was unclear or unexplained.
-
The surgeons, the time interval between the injections and surgery, and the total number of injections administered before surgery varied across studies, so the results were prone to bias.
-
Other risk factors for infection, such as diabetes, malnutrition, and immune deficiencies, may increase the infection risk.
Introduction
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common chronic bone and joint disorder and one of the main causes of disability.1-3 Management strategies include pharmacological and non-pharmacological options. Intra-articular therapies include injections of hyaluronic acid (HA), corticosteroids (CSs), and mesenchymal stem cells.4-6 Intra-articular CS and HA injection therapies are the two main treatments for knee OA. The purpose of these injection therapies is to control the patient’s symptoms in the early stage, and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is usually required in the late stage.7-9 There is considerable evidence suggesting that joint injections can effectively relieve pain in the short term. In fact, the American College of Rheumatology has the conditions to promote the use of CS injections for the management of OA.4 Pharmacological methods are conditionally recommended for the initial management of patients with knee OA; intra-articular CS injections and intra-articular hyaluronate injections are conditionally recommended for patients who have an inadequate response to initial therapy.5 There have been clinical concerns that such injections may predispose patients to infection if TKA is to be subsequently performed at the injected joint. Other studies have shown no evidence that intra-articular injections increase the incidence of infection after TKA. It is still controversial whether intra-articular injections before TKA increase the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).10-18 Some meta-analyses of PJI were conducted after TKA or total hip arthroplasty (THA);19-21 however, the results were contradictory, emphasizing the lack of evidence in existing studies.
There is conflicting evidence regarding the safety of intra-articular injections during the perioperative period. Therefore, this review aimed to assess the impact of preoperative intra-articular injections on the risk of postoperative infection in patients with TKA, focusing on the timing of injection before surgery.
Methods
This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)22 guidelines (PROSPERO number CRD42021268042).
Literature search and selection of studies
We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies published in English prior to 3 March 2021. The reference lists of original and review articles were searched manually to identify more relevant studies. The search conditions were set according to the participants and interventions. The following search terms were combined using the Boolean operators AND/OR: injections, arthroplasty, replacement, knee, and infections. Subject words and free words were combined, the appropriate cut-off characters and Boolean logic operators were used, and the search strategies were formulated in accordance with the search requirements of each electronic database. The retrieval strategy is shown in the Supplementary Material.
Acceptance criteria
Relevant data were extracted from all included studies using standard data extraction forms. Studies were included for analysis if they met the following criteria: 1) Participants (patients who received intra-knee injections before TKA); 2) Intervention (intra-articular knee injections of CSs or HA before TKA); 3) Comparison (no drugs were injected into the knee joint cavity before TKA); and 4) Outcomes (the primary outcome was the infection rate after TKA during a follow-up period of at least six months).
The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty after the injection of drugs into the knee joint; 2) comparison of infection and noninfection after TKA; 3) no data on the incidence of infection; 4) no comparison of outcomes with a control group; and 5) overlapping samples and results.
Data extraction
Data were extracted from the included studies by two authors (XY and LL). Any disagreements between the two authors were resolved through consensus or through consultation with the senior author (LX). From each report, relevant information was extracted, including the name of the first author, journal, country of origin, year of publication, study population, patient registration procedures, sample size, study design, patient age, patient sex, which drugs were injected in the joint cavity, the time of injection, and outcomes (infection rate).
Risk of bias
Methodological quality was assessed by two reviewers (XY and LL) using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale independent assessment, and some changes were made to meet the needs of this study. Study quality was assessed regarding the following three aspects: selection, comparability, and exposure outcome conditions. The maximum total score for the three items was nine points, and a study with a score of ≥ seven points was considered a high-quality study. We used a standardized data table to extract all the data to be evaluated.
Statistical analysis
All analyses were performed using Review Manager, version 5.4 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane Collaboration), and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Dichotomy data analysis was used to determine the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Individual relative risk estimates and summary estimates were displayed graphically in forest plots. The heterogeneity between the studies was tested using I2. A p-value > 0.1 and an I2 value of < 50% indicated that there was no obvious heterogeneity; p < 0.05 and an I2 value of > 50% were considered to be suggestive of statistical heterogeneity. If there was heterogeneity among studies in the results, possible sources of heterogeneity were identified through subgroup analysis. The data for each study were pooled by random-effects models based on the degree of heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses included different injection time periods and drug types. A funnel chart was used to assess publication bias.
Results
Literature search results
The preliminary search of each database resulted in a total of 1,277 articles. A total of 405 duplicate articles were excluded, and 858 articles were excluded after reading the titles and abstracts. We read the full text of the remaining 14 documents, and six articles were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria, as follows: one paper lacked the comparison group; four papers had incomplete data; and one paper was a review. Eight articles met the inclusion criteria. The literature selection process is shown in Figure 1.
Fig. 1
Flow chart showing the selection process of studies for analysis with specifications of reasons.
Characteristics of the studies
The eight studies included 200,067 participants, including 73,880 in the injection group and 126,187 in the control group; all participants were from the USA and UK. All included studies were retrospective cohort studies published between 2005 and 2020. In the included studies, the proportions of females were 60% to 72.8%. Four studies used CS injections, and four studies used CS or HA injections. The definition of infection was not universally reported and was variable across studies. The follow-up period ranged from six to 72 months (Table I).
Table I.
Characteristics of studies.
| Study | Country | Design | Year | Injection group | No injection group | Outcome | Mean follow-up, mths | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size | Mean patient age | Female (%) | Injection drug (product information) | Injection dosage | Sample size | Mean patient age, yrs | Female (%) | Criteria for infection | ||||||
| Papavasiliou et al10 | UK | Retrospective cohort | 2006 | 54 | NR | NR | CS (NR) | NR | 90 | NR | NR | Purulent drainage; culture from aseptically aspirated fluid, swab/tissue biopsy from the deep-tissue layers, or pus cells on microscopy; deep incision that spontaneously dehisced or was explored for a temperature of > 38°C, localized pain or tenderness; an abscess or other evidence of infection involving the deep incision; diagnosis of a deep infection by clinician | Deep infection rate; superficial infection rate | 12 |
| Desai et al11 | UK | Matched cohort study | 2009 | 90 | 68 (49 to 87) | 60 | CS (Depomedrone) | Depomedrone 2 ml (Depomedrone 40 mg/ml; Pharmacia, UK) and Chirocaine (5 mg/ml; Abbott, UK) | 180 | 72 (51 to 88) | 53 | Positive swab cultures; wound with positive culture; revision surgery for infection | Deep infection rate; superficial infection rate | 33 (12 to 72) |
| Cancienne et al12 | USA | Matched cohort study | 2015 | 22,240 | ＜65 yrs: 1,909; 65 to 69 yrs: 5,320; 70 to 74 yrs: 5,811; 75 to 79 yrs: 3,298; 80 to 84 yrs: 3,072; ≥ 85 yrs: 1,201 | 68.5 | CS (NR) | NR | 13,650 | ＜65 yrs: 1,243; 65 to 69 yrs: 3,267; 70 to 74 yrs: 3,545; 75 to 79 yrs: 2,993; 80 to 84 yrs: 1,862; ≥ 85 yrs: 739 | 68.4 | PJI was characterized by either a diagnosis or procedure for wound or deep infection after TKA using CPT and ICD-9 codes | Wound infection rate; deep infection rate | 6 |
| Khanuja et al13 | USA | Matched cohort study | 2016 | 302 | 66 (49 to 92) | 72.8 | CS (triamcinolone acetonide) | Kanalog 40 mg/ml; Bristol Myers Squibb; USA) combined with xylocaine 1% (4 ml) | 302 | 65 (47 to 94) | 72.8 | CDC and Prevention/National Healthcare Safety Network definitions: superficial surgical site infection; deep PJI | Superficial surgical site infection rates; deep PJI rate | 42 (17 to 69) |
| Amin et al14 | USA | Matched cohort study | 2015 | 783 | 63.82 (36 to 89) | NR | CS or HA (NR) | NR | 845 | 64.14 (32 to 91) | NR | Definition from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society | Deep infection rate | 8.67 (1 to 14) |
| Bedard et al15 | USA | Retrospective cohort | 2016 | 29,603 | NR | 66.7 | CS or HA (NR) | NR | 54,081 | NR | 62.5 | Infection requiring surgical intervention | Infection rate | 6 |
| Richardson et al16 | USA | Matched cohort study | 2019 | 19,905 | NR | 63 | CS or HA (NR) | NR | 38,432 | NR | 61.7 | Infection was defined via appropriate ICD-9, ICD-10, and CPT diagnosis | Infection rate | 6 |
| Turcotte et al17 | USA | Matched cohort study | 2020 | 903 | 66.5 | NR | CS or HA (NR) | NR | 18,607 | 65.6 | NR | Infection was identified by the ICD-10 code for infection due to internal knee prosthesis or the CPT codes for treatment of infection | Infection rate | 12 |
-
CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CPT, current procedural terminology; CS, corticosteroid; HA, hyaluronic acid; ICD, International Classification of Diseases; NR, not reported; PJI, periprosthetic joint infection; TKA, total knee arthroplasty.
Risk of bias assessment
All eight included articles were retrospective studies. The quality of the eight articles was analyzed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)23 scoring method; three articles scored six points, three articles scored seven points, one article scored eight points, and one article scored nine points. The included articles were of moderate quality (Table II).
Table II.
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality evaluation form.
| Study | Representativeness of the exposed cohort | Selection of the nonexposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Outcome of interest not present at start of study | Control for important factor or additional factor | Outcome assessment | Follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur | Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts | Total quality scores |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Papavasiliou et al10 | * | * | * | * | * | * | 6 | ||
| Desai et al11 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | |
| Cancienne et al12 | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Khanuja et al13 | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | 9 |
| Amin et al14 | * | * | * | * | * | * | 6 | ||
| Bedard et al15 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 | |
| Richardson et al16 | * | * | * | * | * | * | 6 | ||
| Turcotte et al17 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 |
-
A study could be awarded a maximum of one star for each item except for the item “Control for important factor or additional factor”.
Total infection rate
The eight studies reported the infection rates at the final follow-up for 73,880 and 126,187 participants in the injection and control groups, respectively. Compared with the control group, the injection group had a significantly higher infection rate (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.27; p < 0.001). The heterogeneity analysis showed that the I2 value was 32% (Figure 2).
Fig. 2
Results of meta-analysis for total infection rate. CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.
Infection rates in patients who received injections preoperatively
Four studies reported infection rates in patients who received injections zero to three, four to six, and seven to 12 months preoperatively. One study reported infection rates in patients who received injections up to three months preoperatively. The patients who received injections up to three months had a significantly higher infection rate than those in the control group (RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.35; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). Compared with the control group, the four-to-six-month injection group did not show a significantly different infection rate (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.35; p = 0.240; I2 = 75%). Compared with the control group, the seven-to-12-month injection group did not show a significantly different infection rate (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12; p = 0.600; I2 = 0%) (Figure 3).
Fig. 3
Results of meta-analysis for different preoperative injection time periods. CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.
Infection rates in the HA group versus the CS group
Two studies reported 3,672 patients injected with HA and 17,016 patients injected with CSs. There was no significant difference between the HA and CS groups (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; p = 0.130; I2 = 0%) (Figure 4).
Fig. 4
Results of meta-analysis for hyaluronic acid (HA) group versus the corticosteroid (CS) group. CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.
Superficial infection and deep infection
Two studies included 350 patients in the injection group and 386 patients in the control group, and there was no significant difference in the superficial infection rates between these groups (RR 1.73; 95% CI 0.93 to 3.23; p = 0.090; I2 = 0%). Two studies reported that there was no significant difference in the deep infection rates between the injection group and control group of 337 and 376 participants, respectively (RR 1.99; 95% CI 0.08 to 50.96; p = 0.680; I2 = 76%). Without the time node, we performed no further subgroup analysis (Figure 5).
Fig. 5
Results of meta-analysis for superficial infection and deep infection rates. CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.
Analysis of publication bias
In this study, one comparison group included more than eight articles, and therefore publication bias analysis was required. The scatter diagram method was used to draw comparison indicators into scatter plots. The eight included articles were all based on the total infection rate as an outcome indicator. RevMan 5.4 software was used to draw an asymmetric funnel chart, and there was publication bias (Figure 6).
Fig. 6
Funnel plot of studies meta-analyzed for infection rates. RR, risk ratio; SE, standard error.
Discussion
Meta-analysis has been recognized as an effective method to answer a wide variety of clinical questions by summarizing and reviewing previously published quantitative research. This study compared the total infection rates with and without intra-articular injection before TKA, providing comprehensive evidence for cohort studies. The results of the analysis showed that the total infection rate in the injection group was significantly higher than that in the control group. Some studies have also indicated that preoperative joint cavity injection may increase the postoperative infection rate.12,15,24,25 The exact mechanism by which these drugs increase the risk of infection is unclear. Infection may be due to contamination of the joint during injection. Even if an aseptic technique is used, the injection may still bring a small number of bacteria into the joint cavity. If these bacteria persist, they may colonize the prosthesis and cause periprosthetic joint infection. CSs are well-known immunosuppressants used to treat a variety of systemic immune diseases. Intra-articular injections may result in dissolution failure of drugs, which may persist in the joint cavity and cause local immunosuppression after joint arthroplasty.25 These immunosuppressive agents can also cause a decrease in the systemic immune response and increase the infection rate. Studies on the mechanism of action of HA in joints have indicated that HA may reduce immune function by altering the production of immunomodulatory factors in the synovium, cartilage, and subchondral bone.26-29 The combination of direct injections and local immunosuppression may lead to an increased chance of infection around the prosthesis, which is associated with the two injection types. Previous meta-analyses of patients with hip and knee surgery showed no significant differences between these groups in the infection rates, which was potentially due to the small sample size and low confidence level.19,30
We grouped the injection times into the following categories: zero to three, four to six, and seven to 12 months. The zero-to-three-month injection group had a significantly higher postoperative infection risk than the control group. Compared with the control group, the four-to-six-month injection group did not show a significant difference in the infection rate. Compared with the control group, the seven-to-12-month injection group did not show a significant difference in the infection rate. At all levels that could be analyzed, injections before TKA were associated with a higher risk of postoperative infection. The risk of infection significantly increased up to three months after surgery, and significantly decreased after three months. This result is consistent with those of many other large retrospective database studies that examined injections administered prior to TKA12,15,16 and THA.24,31
This analysis showed that in two studies, there were no significant differences in the infection rates between the HA and CS groups. In a national medical insurance-based database study,16 there was no significant difference in the risk of infection between patients injected with different types of drugs. Amin et al14 also compared a CS group and HA group and found no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.4226). In addition to these two studies, separate data for CSs and HA are provided. To date, few studies have compared the risk of infection according to a history of HA and CS injection. The two groups had similar infection rates, and possible reasons are as follows: 1) injection contamination may occur during the injection of HA and CSs; and 2) both HA and CSs have pharmacological mechanisms leading to low local immunity.25-29 However, further studies comparing the two drugs for the risk of subsequent infection are needed to derive stronger conclusions.
This analysis showed that two studies reported no significant difference in the superficial infection rate between the injection group and the deep infection group. There was no significant difference in the rate of deep infection compared with the control group. Khanuja et al13 reported that during a mean follow-up period of 3.5 years after TKA, there were no significant differences in the prevalence of superficial infection (7 cases vs 6 cases), periprosthetic deep infection (3 cases vs 6 cases), or global infection (10 cases vs 12 cases) between the two groups. Similarly, Papavasiliou et al10 showed that the difference in the incidence of superficial infections between the two groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Studies that have shown that the risk of infection does not increase with preoperative injections typically have smaller sample sizes, so they may have insufficient power to detect differences in rare outcomes.
Another factor not considered in our results is the number of injections before surgery. However, a few studies have analyzed this issue. Richardson et al16 compared the risk of infection after TKA between multiple versus a single intra-articular injection before surgery, and found that there was no difference in the risk of infection. However, the exact relationship between the number of injections and the risk of infection requires more research for verification.
This study has several limitations: eight articles were finally included, all of which were retrospective cohort studies, and therefore confounding factors, such as the injection schedule and patient characteristics, could not be well controlled. Furthermore, the definition of infection in each study was unclear or unexplained. The lack of standardized definitions may overestimate or underestimate the incidence of infection in the included studies. Part of our research is derived from administrative databases, and those data are collected using current procedural terminology codes; however, such databases are prone to coding errors. The surgeons, the time interval between the injections and surgery, and the total number of injections administered before surgery varied across studies, so the results are prone to bias. Additionally, other risk factors for infection, such as diabetes, malnutrition, and immune deficiencies, may increase the infection rate. Finally, some of the included studies had a follow-up time of six months, and there was a lack of long-term follow-up studies.
In conclusion, current evidence suggests that intra-articular injections of CSs or HA before TKA increase the risk of infection. Injections administered more than three months before TKA do not significantly increase the risk of infection. Multicentre prospective studies are needed to further study this issue.
References
1. Vos T , Allen C , Arora M , et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2015 . Lancet . 2016 ; 388 ( 10053 ): 1545 – 1602 . Google Scholar
2. US Burden of Disease Collaborators , Mokdad AH , Ballestros K , Echko M , et al. The state of US health, 1990-2016: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors among US states . JAMA . 2018 ; 319 ( 14 ): 1444 – 1472 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
3. Cross M , Smith E , Hoy D , et al. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study . Ann Rheum Dis . 2014 ; 73 ( 7 ): 1323 – 1330 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
4. McAlindon TE , Bannuru RR , Sullivan MC , et al. OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis . Osteoarthr Cartil . 2014 ; 22 ( 3 ): 363 – 388 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
5. Hochberg MC , Altman RD , April KT , et al. American College of Rheumatology 2012 recommendations for the use of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies in osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee . Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) . 2012 ; 64 ( 4 ): 465 – 474 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
6. Wang J , Zhou L , Zhang Y , Huang L , Shi Q . Mesenchymal stem cells - a promising strategy for treating knee osteoarthritis . Bone Joint Res . 2020 ; 9 ( 10 ): 719 – 728 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
7. Poole JL , Gallegos M . Recommendations for the medical management of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: 2000 update . Arthritis & Rheumatism . 2000 ; 43 ( 9 ): 1905 – 1915 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
8. Jevsevar DS . Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: evidence-based guideline, 2nd edition . J Am Acad Orthop Surg . 2013 ; 21 ( 9 ): 571 – 576 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
9. Roos EM , Arden NK . Strategies for the prevention of knee osteoarthritis . Nat Rev Rheumatol . 2016 ; 12 ( 2 ): 92 – 101 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
10. Papavasiliou AV , Isaac DL , Marimuthu R , Skyrme A , Armitage A . Infection in knee replacements after previous injection of intra-articular steroid . J Bone Joint Surg Br . 2006 ; 88-B ( 3 ): 321 – 323 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
11. Desai A , Ramankutty S , Board T , Raut V . Does intraarticular steroid infiltration increase the rate of infection in subsequent total knee replacements? Knee . 2009 ; 16 ( 4 ): 262 – 264 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
12. Cancienne JM , Werner BC , Luetkemeyer LM , Browne JA . Does timing of previous intra-articular steroid injection affect the post-operative rate of infection in total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty . 2015 ; 30 ( 11 ): 1879 – 1882 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
13. Khanuja HS , Banerjee S , Sodhi GS , Mont MA . Do prior intra-articular corticosteroid injections or time of administration increase the risks of subsequent periprosthetic joint infections after total knee arthroplasty? J Long Term Eff Med Implants . 2016 ; 26 ( 3 ): 191 – 197 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
14. Amin NH , Omiyi D , Kuczynski B , Cushner FD , Scuderi GR . The risk of a deep infection associated with intraarticular injections before a total knee arthroplasty . J Arthroplasty . 2016 ; 31 ( 1 ): 240 – 244 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
15. Bedard NA , Pugely AJ , Elkins JM , et al. The John N. Insall Award: do intraarticular injections increase the risk of infection after TKA? Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2017 ; 475 ( 1 ): 45 – 52 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
16. Richardson SS , Schairer WW , Sculco TP , Sculco PK . Comparison of infection risk with corticosteroid or hyaluronic acid injection prior to total knee arthroplasty . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2019 ; 101-A ( 2 ): 112 – 118 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
17. Turcotte J , Aja J , Menon N , MacDonald J , King P . Impact of preoperative intra-articular injection on infection rates following total knee arthroplasty: an analysis of over 19,000 patients . J Orthop Sports Med . 2020 ; 2 ( 3 ). Crossref Google Scholar
18. Grondin J , Menu P , Métayer B , Crenn V , Dauty M , Fouasson-Chailloux A . Intra-articular injections prior to total knee arthroplasty do not increase the risk of periprosthetic joint infection: a prospective cohort study . Antibiotics (Basel) . 2021 ; 10 ( 3 ): 330 . Crossref Google Scholar
19. Wang Q , Jiang X , Tian W . Does previous intra-articular steroid injection increase the risk of joint infection following total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis . Med Sci Monit . 2014 ; 20 : 1878 – 1883 . Crossref Google Scholar
20. Xing D , Yang Y , Ma X , Ma J , Ma B , Chen Y . Dose intraarticular steroid injection increase the rate of infection in subsequent arthroplasty: grading the evidence through a meta-analysis . J Orthop Surg Res . 2014 ; 9 : 107 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
21. Pereira LC , Kerr J , Jolles BM . Intra-articular steroid injection for osteoarthritis of the hip prior to total hip arthroplasty: is it safe? a systematic review . Bone Joint J . 2016 ; 98-B ( 8 ): 1027 – 1035 . Crossref Google Scholar
22. Hutton B , Wolfe D , Moher D , Shamseer L . Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews . Evid Based Ment Health . 2017 ; 20 ( 2 ): 46 – 52 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
23. Wells G , Shea B , O’Connell D , et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses . 2008 . http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp ( date last accessed 17 March 2022 ). Google Scholar
24. Werner BC , Cancienne JM , Browne JA . The timing of total hip arthroplasty after intraarticular hip injection affects postoperative infection risk . J Arthroplasty . 2016 ; 31 ( 4 ): 820 – 823 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
25. Little NJ , Chipperfield A , Ricketts DM . Infection in knee replacements after previous injection of intra-articular steroid . J Bone Joint Surg Br . 2007 ; 89-B ( 3 ): 423; author reply 423 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
26. Lee Y-T , Shao H-J , Wang J-H , Liu H-C , Hou S-M , Young T-H . Hyaluronic acid modulates gene expression of connective tissue growth factor (CTGF), transforming growth factor-beta1 (TGF-beta1), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in human fibroblast-like synovial cells from advanced-stage osteoarthritis in vitro . J Orthop Res . 2010 ; 28 ( 4 ): 492 – 496 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
27. Chou L-W , Wang J , Chang P-L , Hsieh Y-L . Hyaluronan modulates accumulation of hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and matrix metalloproteinase-3 in the synovium of rat adjuvant-induced arthritis model . Arthritis Res Ther . 2011 ; 13 ( 3 ): R90 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
28. Moreland LW . Intra-articular hyaluronan (hyaluronic acid) and hylans for the treatment of osteoarthritis: mechanisms of action . Arthritis Res Ther . 2003 ; 5 ( 2 ): 54 – 67 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
29. Li J , Gorski DJ , Anemaet W , et al. Hyaluronan injection in murine osteoarthritis prevents TGFbeta 1-induced synovial neovascularization and fibrosis and maintains articular cartilage integrity by a CD44-dependent mechanism . Arthritis Res Ther . 2012 ; 14 ( 3 ): R151 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
30. Charalambous CP , Prodromidis AD , Kwaees TA . Do intra-articular steroid injections increase infection rates in subsequent arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies . J Arthroplasty . 2014 ; 29 ( 11 ): 2175 – 2180 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
31. Schairer WW , Nwachukwu BU , Mayman DJ , Lyman S , Jerabek SA . Preoperative hip injections increase the rate of periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty . J Arthroplasty . 2016 ; 31 ( 9 Suppl ): 166 – 169 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
Author contributions
X. Yang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft.
L. Li: Investigation, Formal analysis.
X. Ren: Investigation.
L. Nie: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.
Funding statement
The authors received no financial or material support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Open access funding
The authors confirm that the open access fee for this study was self-funded.
Supplementary material
Retrieval strategy and the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
© 2022 Author(s) et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
