Lumbar steroid injection can be endorsed as a treatment component for lumbrosacral radicular pain syndrome resulting from disc herniation. The facet joint steroid injection seems to be beneficial for patients with chronic backache due to the facet joint arthritis and in the lumbar Spondylosis. We did a retrospective review of 31 patients whom we treated between 2004 and 2005 with follow up of 6 months to 24 months. There were 19 females and 12 males, aged between 29–81 years. Five patients had previous surgery for simple discectomy to posterior spinal fusion. Four patients had multiple disc prolapse at 3–4 levels, 2 patients had a severe lumbar spondylosis and spinal stenosis. The remaining 20 patients had a single level disc prolapse. All these patients were given caudal and facet joint blocks. The pre and post steroid injection Oswestry score was done. After steroid injection the Oswestry score improved by 30%. Majority of the patients had pain relief for 2–18 months. The pain relief was much better in the non operative group with single level disc pro-lapse and those patients with lumbar spondylosis. In patients with chronic back pain there is an inflammatory basis for pain generation. Lumbar steroid injection seems to be beneficial in patients with disc prolapse and lumbar spondylosis. In the literature various randomized trials have been done and their results are controversial. Our study showed definitive improvement in terms of pain and function of our patient

Aims. Steroid injections are used for subacromial pain syndrome and can be administered via the anterolateral or posterior approach to the subacromial space. It is not currently known which approach is superior in terms of improving clinical symptoms and function. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the clinical effectiveness of a steroid injection given via the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Methods. The Subacromial Approach Injection Trial (SAInT) study is a single-centre, parallel, two-arm RCT. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to a subacromial steroid injection via either the anterolateral or the posterior approach to the subacromial space. Participants in both trial arms will then receive physiotherapy as standard of care for subacromial pain syndrome. The primary analysis will compare the change in Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at three months after injection. Secondary outcomes include the change in OSS at six and 12 months, as well as the Pain Numeric Rating Scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain), Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (RAND) at three months, six months, and one year after injection. Assessment of pain experienced during the injection will also be determined. A minimum of 86 patients will be recruited to obtain an 80% power to detect a minimally important difference of six points on the OSS change between the groups at three months after injection. Conclusion. The results of this trial will demonstrate if there is a difference in shoulder pain and function after a subacromial space steroid injection between the anterolateral versus posterior approach in patients with subacromial pain syndrome. This will help to guide treatment for patients with subacromial pain syndrome. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):729–735

Prior to the introduction of steroid management in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), the prevalence of scoliosis approached 100%, concomitant with progressive decreases in pulmonary function. As such, early scoliosis correction (at 20-25°) was advocated, prior to substantial pulmonary function decline. With improved pulmonary function and delayed curve progression with steroid treatment, the role of early surgery has been questioned. The purpose of this study was to compare the post-operative outcomes of early versus late scoliosis correction in DMD. We hypothesize that performing later surgery with larger curves would not lead to worse post-operative complications. Retrospective cohort study. Patients with DMD who underwent posterior scoliosis correction, had pre-operative pulmonary function testing, and at least 1-year post-operative follow-up, were included; divided into 2 Groups by pre-operative curve angle – 1: ≤45°, 2: >45°. Primary outcome was post-operative complications by Clavien-Dindo (CD) grading. Secondary outcomes included: age at surgery, forced vital capacity (FVC), steroid utilization, fractional shortening (FS) by echocardiogram, surgery duration, blood transfusion requirements, ICU length of stay (LOS), days intubated post-operatively, hospital LOS, infection, curve correction. Two-tailed t-test and chi-square testing were used for analysis of patient factors and CD complication grade, respectively. 31 patients met the inclusion criteria, with a mean total follow-up of 8.3±3.2 years. Steroid treatment (prednisone, deflazacort) was utilized for 21 (67.7%) patients, for a mean duration of 8.2±4.0 years. Groups were comparable for steroid use, FVC, echo FS, and age at surgery (p>0.05). Primary curve angle was 31.7±10.4° and 58.3±11.1° for Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p 0.05). Surgery duration, ICU LOS, days intubated, hospital LOS, were also not different between Groups. For the entire cohort, however, the overall complication rate was higher for patients with steroid treatment [61.9% vs 10%, respectively (p=0.008)], the majority being CDII. Neither FVC nor echo FS were different between Groups at final follow-up (p=0.6; p=0.4, respectively). Post-operative complication rates were not different for early and late scoliosis correction in DMD. In general, however, patients undergoing steroid treatment were at higher risk of blood transfusion and deep infection. Delaying scoliosis correction in DMD while PF is favourable is reasonable, but patients with prior steroid treatment should be counseled regarding the higher risk of complications

This was a double-blind randomised controlled study. The objective of this study was to determine the cause of post-injection pain after peri-articular steroid injection. Approval for this study was granted by the hospital’s Ethics Committee. Selection criteria included all patients undergoing a peri-articular injection under the care of the senior author. Patients who elected to be in this study gave their consent following a detailed explanation of the study and provision of a patient information leaflet. The enrolled patients were randomised into one of two groups. Group A received a standard triamcinolone acetonide injection mixed with bupivicaine. Group B patients received triamcinolone acetonide without the preservative part of the drug and bupivicaine. Both the patient and the surgeon were unaware which group the patient was selected to be in. Patients’ scores were recorded using visual analogue scales and pain severity scores prior to injection and 4 days following injection. Inflammatory signs were also recorded at 4 days post-procedure. A total of 52 patients were enrolled. Pain scores reduced by 46% in group A and 43% in group B. Inflammatory signs occurred in 26% less cases when group B was compared with group A, however this was not statistically significant

To compare the efficacy of local steroid injection with surgical decompression in treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in terms of frequency of pain. This randomized controlled study was conducted at the Department of Orthopaedics for a duration of 01 year, i.e. from 20th April 2016 to 19th April 2017. 130 patients with carpal tunnel syndrome with moderate (Grade 2) and severe (Grade 3) pain were included. Lottery method was used to allocate the patients randomly into two groups. Group A contained 65 patients who were subjected to surgical decompression and 65 patients were in Group B who were injected with local steroid injection. Complete history was obtained from all patients. All the surgical decompressions through mini incision technique and injections procedures were performed. Information were recorded in a pre designed Performa. Efficacy was observed significantly high in group B as compared to group A (87.7% vs. 72.3%, p=0.028). Carpal Tunnel syndrome symptoms were alleviated with surgical decompression as well as local steroid injection at a follow up done after 1 month. However the steroid injections seem to have greater efficacy than surgical decompression, hence we suggest it for routine treatment of all patients with CTS. For any reader queries, please contact . virgo_r24@hotmail.com

Following arthroscopic arthrolysis for frozen shoulder, steroid injections may become necessary to improve ongoing pain and facilitate stretching exercises. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rate of steroid injections needed post-arthroscopic arthrolysis of frozen shoulder. Case series review carried out in a District General Hospital in UK. 30 consecutive patients who had arthroscopic arthrolysis under the care of the senior author were included. Patients’ records were analysed to identify the number of steroid injections administered post-operatively. 11 males and 19 females were examined, aged 46–83 years old (mean 56.1). 7 patients were diabetic. 10 patients (33.3%) received steroid injections post-operatively, with 8 of them receiving the injection within the first 6 post-operative months. The average post-operative time of steroid injection was 9.8 months. There was no association between diabetes and administration of a post-operative steroid injection P>0.01. Following arthroscopic arthrolysis a substantial proportion of patients may require one or more steroid injections to help pain and facilitate stretching exercises and physiotherapy. This study showed that 1 in 3 frozen shoulders treated with arthroscopic arthrolysis may need a subsequent steroid injection in the first year post surgery. Patients should be counselled preoperatively with regards to that, and be warned that arthroscopic arthrolysis is only the first step in the treatment pathway leading to recovery. Blackpool Victoria Hospital Orthopaedic Department

Background. Guidelines recommend epidural steroid injections (ESI) for treating severe disc-related sciatica based on trial data showing modest reductions in leg pain, disability and surgery avoidance. Despite their widespread use, there is no clear evidence about which patients are more likely to benefit from ESI. The aim of this study was to generate consensus on potential predictors of outcome following ESI for disc-related sciatica to include in data collection in a future cohort study. Methods. A list of potential predictors of outcome following ESI was generated from existing literature and a consensus meeting with seven experts. Items were subsequently presented in a two-round on-line modified Delphi study to generate consensus among experts on which items are agreed as potential predictors of outcome from ESI (consensus defined as 70% agreement with ranking of remaining items). Results. An initial list of 53 items was generated and 90 experts were invited from seven countries to participate in the on-line Delphi study. Response rates were 48% (n=44) and 73% (n=33) for round 1 and 2 respectively. Twenty-eight additional items suggested by participants in round 1 were included in round 2. Of the 81 items, 14 reached consensus; across domains of medication use, previous surgery, pain intensity, psychosocial factors, imaging findings and type of injection. Highest ranked of remaining items included work-related and clinical assessment items. Conclusion. Based on expert consensus, items that can be routinely collected in clinical practice were identified as potential predictors of outcomes following ESI. These will be tested in a future multicentre cohort study. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica. Methods. The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Between study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results. Results. 2726 citations were identified; 11 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-five prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n=7 studies), imaging features (n=6 studies), health and lifestyle (n=5 studies), patient demographics (n=4 studies) and clinical assessment findings (n=4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies. Conclusions. There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

To assess the incidence of infection in cases of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty with prior steroid injection into the knee joint. Steroid injection into the arthritic joint is a well-known modality of treatment of arthritic joints. Its efficacy is well-documented. Increased incidence of infection secondary to steroid injection as compared to uninjected joints is reported in recent literature. A retrospective study was conducted. Four hundred and forty patients underwent Total Knee Replacement by the senior author during 1997–2005 at Wrightington hospital. Ninety patients had intraarticular steroid injection prior to surgery of which 35 patients had injection within 1 year prior to surgery. All patients had at least one year follow-up. Infection rate was assessed by case note, x-rays and microbiology review till last follow-up. One hundred and eighty patients of matched cohort who had Total Knee Replacement without steroid injection were compared for infection rate. Two cases of superficial infection were noted in the infection group and 5 cases of superficial infection in the non-injection group. No case of deep infection was noted in either group. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in incidence of infection in either group. Steroids are useful adjuncts in the management of patients with arthritic joints. This study shows no increased incidence of infection in patients who were given steroid injection prior to arthroplasty

Objective: To assess the possible effect of intra-articular steroid injections to future TKA. Materials-Method: We retrospectively studied all 231 patients who underwent AGC (Biomet) TKR in our hospital from February 2002 to October 2004. Twenty notes were not available in medical records and were excluded from the study. Other exclusion criteria were previous surgery (other than knee arthroscopy) on the affected site, a diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis, immunosu-pressed patients, a previous history of infection around the knee, smoking, diabetic patients. Applying these criteria we excluded a further sixty-seven patients. The remaining 144 patients were separated in to two groups. Group I (n=54) consisted of those patients that received one or more recorded I/A steroid injections in their operated knee in an orthopaedic clinic, rheumatology clinic or general practice setting prior to surgery. Group II (n=90) consisted of those patients with no record of receiving an I/A steroid injection prior to surgery. Results: We found that all the deep infections (3) were from Group I and had received an I/A steroid injection up to 11 months prior to surgery. The incidence of superficial infection was not significantly different from the control group (Group II). In addition to those patients with confirmed deep infections, five patients underwent post-operative investigations for suspected deep infection, due to symptoms of persistent swelling or pain. All had received an I/A steroid injection pre-operatively. The length of time between injection and subsequent post-operative infection leads us to speculate that the steroid agent might not fully dissolve, becoming trapped within the soft tissues or cystic areas of degeneration in the knee joint. Such steroids may become re-activated during operation, leading to catastrophic results. Indeed, there is experimental evidence to suggest an increased risk of infection with the intra-operative administration of steroids. Conclusion: We conclude that the decision to administer intra-articular steroids to a patient who may be a candidate for knee replacement surgery should not be taken lightly because of a risk of post operative deep infection

Purpose. Osteoarthritis of the trapezio-metacarpal joint (TMJ or basal thumb joint) is a common condition causing significant disability. A range of non-operative and operative management options can be used for its treatment. One of the most common conservative treatments is a steroid injection into the joint. To confirm correct placement of the steroid it is preferable to use X-ray image intensification. Few previous studies have audited effectiveness, particularly with the use of radiological guidance. Methods. This clinical observational study prospectively reviewed the longevity of benefit of steroid injections into the TMJ. They were followed up until the analgesic effects ceased with a questionnaire including visual analogue scores. The clinical improvement was compared with the degree of radiological osteoarthritis (Eaton grade). Seventy-seven patients were recruited with a median age of 62 years and injected with steroid and local anaesthetic under radioscopic guidance. Results. Nearly half of the patients had a 3-month improvement. Two-thirds benefited for at least 2 months. One in six patients had a 6-month benefit, with some patients still improved 2 years after injection. Previously injected patients had a reduced duration of benefit compared to their previous injection. Effectiveness was not affected by Eaton grade. We had no complications except pain during injection. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that there are potentially significant benefits to be gained from steroid injections into the TMJ. We believe the outcome is improved by using radiological guidance and by adding local anaesthetic. Based on this study we recommend steroid injections in all degrees of TMJ osteoarthritis

There has never been a study of whether intra-articular steroid injections of arthritic hips can alter the outcomes of subsequent arthritis management, particularly total hip arthroplasty (THA). In this study forty patients with a history of steroid injection of the hip and subsequent THA are examined retrospectively for infections, revisions, and prospectively-gathered hip scores, as compared to matched non-steroid controls. The steroid group had an increased incidence of pain, infectious workup under usual care, and two revisions for deep infection within three years. We suggest that steroid injections of hips should be avoided in patients who are candidates for THA. Despite the lack of demonstrated efficacy of intra-articular steroid injections for hip arthritis, the procedure is often utilized for diagnostic differentiation from spine pain, and attempted therapeutic management of painful hip arthritis. However, in the era of total hip arthroplasty (THA) the safety of this practice must be evaluated in the context of whether the injections pose any potential for complicating subsequent surgery, particularly with regard to infection. In this study, forty patients who underwent THA and had a history of previous steroid injection were compared retrospectively to forty carefully-matched patients who underwent THA in the same time period but had no history of prior steroid injection. Outcome measures included whether there was a septic workup under usual care, and this occurred in 20% of steroid patients within the first thirty-six months post-THA, as opposed to 0% in the controls. Furthermore, in a detailed analysis of Harris and Oxford scores, there was in the steroid group a higher incidence of night pain, increased severity of pain, and reduced function with activities of daily living at one year. There were two revisions for deep infection in the steroid group, and one revision for dislocation in each of the steroid and control groups. Pending the completion of the study, we provisionally suggest that steroid injection of hips may be ill-advised in a patient who will be a candidate for THA in the future. This suggestion is based primarily on the incidence of pain and infectious complications in the first postoperative year. Funding Dr Kaspar holds academic research grants from McMaster University and from The Physicians’ Services Incorporated (PSI) Foundation, the latter of which was used to finance this study and the continuation thereof. There are no commercial grants or conflicts of interest

Introduction: Epidural steroid injection is commonly used for treatment of sciatica. Traditionally these have been administered through a needle inserted in the posterior mid line via an interlaminar (IL) route. However, in recent years the transforaminal (TF) route of administration has become popular. Potential advantages of the TF route include greater accuracy of injection (with radiological confirmation) and placement of the needle tip closer to the point at which the nerve is compressed. Methods: Consecutive patients from the practices of 2 surgeons that use an IL technique were compared with those from the practices of 2 other surgeons that use a TF technique. Inclusion criteria were leg pain accompanied by a radiological diagnosis of nerve root compression. Both patients with disc prolapse and spinal stenosis were included. Treatment outcome was measured using the Roland-Morris (RM) Score, the Sciatica Frequency and Bothersome Index (SFBI) and the Euroqol (EQ-5D) questionnaire obtained at recruitment and three months after the epidural steroid injection. A global assessment (GA) of outcome; where patients were asked whether they were. much better,. better,. un changed or. worse after treatment; was obtained at 3 months. Patients were also asked the duration of any relief obtained. Statistical methods utilized included the two tailed t-test, the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, Odds ratio (OR) and the Chi Squared Test. Results: 39 patients received an interlaminar epidural steroid injection and 25 received a transforaminal epidural steroid injection (total 64 patients). Follow-up was achieved for 36/39 (92.3%) and 25 (100%) patients respectively. The median pre-test RM score was 11 (range 3–11) for both groups. Post test RM score was 12(6–16) for the IL group and 3 (6–10.5) for the TF group (p=0.01). Median pre-test SFBI was 25 (0–46) and 26 (4–46) for the IL and TF groups respectively. Post test SFBI was 22 (0–46) and 18 (0–41) for the IL and TF groups respectively (p=0.003). Median pre- test EQ-5D was 0.54 for both groups (range 0.06–0.72 for the IL group and 0.08–0.72 for the TF group). Post test EQ-5D was 0.55 (0.06–1) for the IL group and 0.66 (0.06–1) (p=0.21). According to their GA, 11.1% felt much better, 33.3% felt better and 55.6% felt unchanged at 3 months in the IL group. 64% felt much better, 34% better and 12% felt unchanged in the transforaminal group. The proportion of patients having relief for 3 months or more after the injections was 3/36 (8.3%) for the IL group and 10/25 (40%) for the TF group. The transforaminal injection was 7 times more likely to result in pain relief at 3 months. (OR 7.3 95% CI 1.5 – 45.8, p=0.003). Discussion: Epidural steroid injection by the transforaminal route is more effective then by the interlaminar route in the short term relief of sciatica

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) for severe sciatica but there is uncertainty of effectiveness. The POiSE study aims to identify factors, routinely collected in clinical practice that predict outcome in patients who have ESI. This presentation describes characteristics and early clinical outcomes of POiSE participants. Methods. Prospective cohort study in 19 NHS spinal services in England, inviting patients with sciatica listed for an ESI. Participant baseline characteristics and 6-week follow-up outcomes are presented. Outcomes include pain intensity (0–10 NRS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index 0–100) and global change in symptoms. Results. Over 24 months, 693 patients were invited to participate and 353 (51%) completed baseline questionnaires. Mean (SD) age 49.0 years (14.4), 60% female, and 46% (n=101) of those in work had certified time-off for sciatica. Mean pain intensity was 7.2 (2.0) and 6.2 (2.7) for leg and back pain respectively and mean disability (ODI) was 46.5 (18). 60% (n=210) had leg pain for >6 months. Average confidence at baseline (0 to 10) that the ESI would help symptoms was 5.7 (2.4). Of 217 patients reaching 6-week follow-up, mean leg and back pain intensity is 5.0 (2.8) and 4.9 (2.9) respectively and ODI 36.6 (20.4), with 57% reporting improvement (completely recovered/much better/better). Follow-up data collection at 6, 12 and 24-weeks post-ESI is ongoing. Conclusion. Interim analysis shows only just over half of patients are reporting improvement at 6 weeks post ESI. The POiSE cohort study will help better identify the patients with sciatica who are most likely to benefit from this treatment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Injection of corticosteroids into the digital flexor tendon sheath is an accepted and effective treatment for stenosing tenosynovitis. However, despite long historical experience with this procedure, there remains no guide in the literature as to the optimal dose of steroid. Furthermore, the accuracy of these injections has not been well established. Using a prospective, randomized, blinded design, this study compares the outcomes of high (20 mg) and low (10 mg) dose depomedrol injection. Furthermore, the accuracy of tendon sheath injections was assessed radiographically. The findings demonstrate increased effectiveness of the higher steroid dose and a significant learning curve associated with intra-thecal injections. Injection of corticosteroids into the digital flexor tendon sheath is an accepted and effective treatment for stenosing tenosynovitis (trigger finger). However, despite long historical experience with this procedure, there remains no guide in the literature as to the safe and effective dose of steroid to be administered. Furthermore, the accuracy of digital tendon sheath injections has not been well established. One study has suggested that steroid injected outside the tendon sheath was as effective as intra-thecal injection and may result in reduced complications of infection and tendon rupture. Using a prospective, blinded design, patients were randomized to receive either high (20 mg) or low (10 mg) dose depomedrol injection. The accuracy of the steroid injections was determined radiographically using non-ionic radio-opaque dye. Outcome measures included pain, tenderness, presence of a palpable nodule, triggering, and limitation of activities (work, hobbies, ADLs). Complications such as pain, stiffness, bruising, thinning of the fat or skin, infection and tendon rupture were also recorded. Higher dose depomedrol (20 mg) was found to be more effective for relieving pain and triggering than lower dose depomedrol (10 mg). No increase in complication rate was encountered. Stenosing tenosynovitis in diabetic patients was markedly less responsive to treatment. Injection accuracy was found to increase with clinical experience from approximately 50% for beginners to over 90% for experienced hand surgeons. At the time of submission of this abstract, patient numbers (currently forty-one participants) do not allow analysis regarding the effect of injection accuracy on clinical outcome

Introduction: Steroid Infiltration into arthritic joints are a common means of treating pain. They are also sometimes done to differentiate pain in the hip from the low back or knee. There are recent reports which suggest that the rate of infection in hip arthroplasty after injection is higher than in previously uninjected joints. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of the notes of all patients who underwent hip replacements in Wrightington Hospital under the care of the senior author from 1997 to 2004. We identified all patients who had at least one year follow up after the procedure. The infection rates in the patients who had an injection of steroid into the joint prior to hip replacement were compared to those who had no such intervention. Results: There were 589 patients who had a hip replacement in this period. Of these, 72 had a prior injection of steroid into the joint. In the injected group, there was no incidence of infection during the period of follow up. There was one case of infection in a patient who did not have an injection prior to the arthroplasty. Discussion: Steroid injections are a valuable adjunct in the management of patients with arthritic joints. This review clearly identifies no increased risk of infection in patients who had the injection prior to the operation

Aims. To examine the relationship of sex steroid hormones with osteopenia in a nationally representative sample of men in the USA. Methods. Data on bone mineral density (BMD), serum sex hormones, dairy consumption, smoking status, and body composition were available for 806 adult male participants of the cross-sectional National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 1999-2004). We estimated associations between quartiles of total and estimated free oestradiol (E2) and testosterone (T) and osteopenia (defined as 1 to 2.5 SD below the mean BMD for healthy 20- to 29-year-old men) by applying sampling weights and using multivariate-adjusted logistic regression. We then estimated the association between serum hormone concentrations and osteopenia by percentage of body fat, frequency of dairy intake, cigarette smoking status, age, and race/ethnicity. Results. Men in the lowest quartile of total E2 concentrations (< 21.52 pg/ml) had greater odds of osteopenia compared with men in the highest quartile (odds ratio (OR) 2.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 4.73; p-trend = 0.030). Total and free T were not associated with osteopenia. Low total E2 concentrations were associated with greater odds of osteopenia among non-daily dairy consumers (p-trend = 0.046), current or former smokers (p-trend = 0.032), and younger men (p-trend = 0.031). No differences were observed by race/ethnicity and obesity. Conclusion. In this nationally representative study of the USA, men with lower total E2 were more likely to have osteopenia, which was particularly evident among younger men, men with less-than-daily dairy consumption, and current or former smokers. Cite this article:Bone Joint Res. 2020;9(3):139–145

Aim: To assess the long-term treatment outcome following conservative treatment of wrist ganglions by aspiration and steroid injections. Materials and Methods: Between December 2001 and November 2003, 49 patients with wrist ganglions were seen and treated by one surgeon*. There were 20 males and 29 females with an average age of 37 years (range 13 to 70 years). Anatomically we had 41 dorsal wrist, 5 volar wrist and 3 digital ganglions. Diagnosis was made on clinical examination, explained to patients about the condition and given three options of treatment. Reassurance,. Aspiration and steroid injection and. Surgery with its associated complications. 39% (14) were satisfied with reassurance alone, 69%(34) had aspiration and steroid injection and one opted for surgery. Those who opted for aspiration and steroid injection are included in the study. The aspiration was carried out under sterile technique, area infiltrated with 1% lignocaine, followed by aspiration of ganglion content using 16 G needle and injection of Methyl-prednisolone Acetate BP 40 mg/ml. The patients were advised to carry out their normal activities and followed up at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Follow up period range between 6 weeks to 6 months (average of 3.8 months). Results: 34 ganglia treated with aspiration and steroid injection had a cure rate of 47%(16), 31%(10) and 12%(4) respectively after 1,2 and 3 treatments with a cumulative success rate of 88%(30 of 34). We had recurrence rate of 12% (4 of 34) after 3 injections and two patients with skin discoloration. Conclusion: Treatment options should be given to patients with wrist and digital ganglions. Conservative treatment is quite successful, which will avoid surgery and associated complications. Even though our sample size is too small to make any statistical significance, cumulative success rate of 88% following multiple treatments of aspiration and steroid injections are in comparable with other studies

In this study, 40 patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) and had a history of previous steroid injections were compared retrospectively with 40 carefully matched patients who underwent THA in the same period but had never received steroid injections. The development of sepsis under standard care was one of the outcome measures. This occurred in 20% of steroid patients within the first 36 months after THA, compared to 0% in the control group. Further, in a detailed analysis of Harris and Oxford scores, patients treated with steroid had a higher incidence of night pain, more severe pain, and greater loss of function in activities of daily living at one year. There were two revisions for deep infection in the steroid and control groups. Based on the incidence of pain and infectious complications in the first postoperative year, and pending completion of the study, we provisionally suggest that steroid injection of hips may be ill advised in patients who are likely candidates for future THA

Steroids are known to have an adverse effect on the blood glucose levels in diabetics. Intra-articular steroids are commonly used in Orthopaedic and Rheumatology practice. However we have failed to identify any studies to date that have been carried out on the short-term effect of intra-articular steroids in diabetics who are taking insulin. This study was carried out to establish the effects of intra-articular (IA) steroid injections on the blood glucose levels and insulin requirements for insulin dependant diabetic patients treated for a “Frozen Shoulder”. Methods: Insulin-dependant diabetic patients suffering from a “Frozen Shoulder” who were referred to our out patient clinics were recruited prospectively for this study. Each patient received 40 mg of long acting steroid plus 9 mls of 0.5% Marcain injected intra-articularly into the glenohumeral joint. They were each asked to record their subsequent blood glucose levels and insulin requirements on a form, four times a day for seven days post injection. Each patient was seen again at 6 weeks and, when appropriate, they were offered a second intra-articular injection according to the recommendations of Jacobs et al. 1. (1991). Results: Fifteen patients were recruited into the study. All patients reported a disturbance of their blood glucose control in the post injection period lasting for a variable period up to seven days. Approximately one third of patients found it necessary to increase their daily insulin requirements during the first two days after the injection. Conclusion: IA steroid injections cause disturbance of the blood glucose control in insulin dependant diabetics. Patients must be warned regarding this side effect when IA steroid injections are given