Aims. Ultrasound (US)-guided injections are widely used in patients with conditions of the shoulder in order to improve their accuracy. However, the clinical efficacy of US-guided injections compared with blind injections remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and efficacy of US-guided compared with blind corticosteroid injections into the glenohumeral joint in patients with primary frozen shoulder (FS). Methods. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections were administered to 90 patients primary FS, who were randomly assigned to either an US-guided (n = 45) or a blind technique (n = 45), by a shoulder specialist. Immediately after injection, fluoroscopic images were obtained to assess the accuracy of the injection. The outcome was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the subjective shoulder value (SSV) and range of movement (ROM) for all patients at the time of presentation and at three, six, and 12 weeks after injection. Results. The accuracy of injection in the US and blind groups was 100% (45/45) and 71.1% (32/45), respectively; this difference was significant (p < 0.001). Both groups had significant improvements in VAS pain score, ASES score, SSV, forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation throughout follow-up until 12 weeks after injection (all p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the VAS pain scores, the ASES score, the SSV and all ROMs between the two groups at the time points assessed (all p > 0.05). No injection-related adverse effects were noted in either group. Conclusion. We found no significant differences in pain and functional outcomes between the two groups, although an US-guided injection was associated with greater accuracy. Considering that it is both costly and time-consuming, an US-guided intra-articular injection of corticosteroid seems not always to be necessary in the treatment of FS as it gives similar outcomes as a blind injection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):353–359

Aims. The objective of this double-blind randomised controlled trial was to assess whether ultrasound guidance improved the efficacy of corticosteroid injections for Morton’s neuroma (MN). . Patients and Methods. In all, 50 feet (40 patients) were recruited for this study but five feet were excluded due to the patients declining further participation. The mean age of the remaining 36 patients (45 feet) was 57.8 years (standard deviation (. sd. ) 12.9) with a female preponderance (33F:12M). All patients were followed-up for 12 months. Treatment was randomised to an ultrasound guided (Group A) or non-ultrasound guided (Group B) injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 2 ml 1% lignocaine, following ultrasound confirmation of the diagnosis. . Results. The mean visual analogue score for pain improved significantly in both groups (Group A – from 64 mm, . sd. 25 mm to 29 mm, . sd. 27; Group B – from 69 mm, . sd. 23 mm to 37 mm, . sd. 25) with no statistical difference between them at all time-points. The failure rate within 12 months of treatment was 11/23 (48%) and 12/22 (55%) in Groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.458). The improvement in Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire Index and patient satisfaction favoured Group A in the short-term (three months) that almost reached statistical significance (p = 0.059 and 0.066 respectively). However, this difference was not observed beyond three months. . Conclusion. This study has shown that ultrasound guidance did not demonstrably improve the efficacy of corticosteroid injections in patients with MN. Take home message: In the presence of a clear diagnosis of MN, a trained clinician who understands the forefoot anatomy may perform an injection without ultrasound guidance with good and safe results. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:498–503

A total of 159 patients (84 women and 75 men, mean age of 53 (20 to 87)) with subacromial impingement were randomised to treatment with subacromial injections using lidocaine with one of hyaluronic acid (51 patients), corticosteroid (53 patients) or placebo (55 patients). Patients were followed up for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was pain on a visual analogue score (VAS), and secondary outcomes included the Constant Murley score, shoulder pain score, functional mobility score, shoulder disability questionnaire and pain-specific disability score. The different outcome measures showed similar results. After three, six and 12 weeks corticosteroid injections were superior to hyaluronic acid injections and only at six weeks significantly better than placebo injections. The mean short-term reduction in pain on the VAS score at 12 weeks was 7% (. sd. 2.7; 97.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.207 to 1.55; p = 0.084) in the hyaluronic acid group, 28% (. sd. 2.8; 97.5% CI 1.86 to 3.65; p < 0.001) in the corticosteroid group and 23% (. sd. 3.23; 97.5% CI 1.25 to 3.26; p < 0.001) in the placebo group. At 26 weeks there was a reduction in pain in 63% (32 of 51) of patients in the hyaluronic acid group, 72% (38 of 53) of those in the corticosteroid group and 69% (38 of 55) of those in the placebo group. We were not able to show a convincing benefit from hyaluronic acid injections compared with corticosteroid or placebo injections. Corticosteroid injections produced a significant reduction in pain in the short term (three to 12 weeks), but in the long term the placebo injection produced the best results

Aims. Intra-articular (IA) injection may be used when treating hip osteoarthritis (OA). Common injections include steroids, hyaluronic acid (HA), local anaesthetic, and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Network meta-analysis allows for comparisons between two or more treatment groups and uses direct and indirect comparisons between interventions. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of various IA injections used in the management of hip OA with a follow-up of up to six months. Methods. This systematic review and network meta-analysis used a Bayesian random-effects model to evaluate the direct and indirect comparisons among all treatment options. PubMed, Web of Science, Clinicaltrial.gov, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluate the efficacy of HA, PRP, local anaesthetic, steroid, steroid+anaesthetic, HA+PRP, and physiological saline injection as a placebo, for patients with hip OA were included. Results. In this meta-analysis of 16 RCTs with a total of 1,735 participants, steroid injection was found to be significantly more effective than placebo injection on reported pain at three months, but no significant difference was observed at six months. Furthermore, steroid injection was considerably more effective than placebo injection for functional outcomes at three months, while the combination of HA+PRP injection was substantially more effective at six months. Conclusion. Evidence suggests that steroid injection is more effective than saline injection for the treatment of hip joint pain, and restoration of functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):532–539

Aims. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the rate of conversion to surgical release after a steroid injection in patients with a trigger finger, and to analyze which patient- and trigger finger-related factors affect the outcome of an injection. Methods. The medical records of 500 patients (754 fingers) treated for one or more trigger fingers with a steroid injection or with surgical release, between 1 January 2016 and 1 April 2020 with a follow-up of 12 months, were analyzed. Conversion to surgical release was recorded as an unsuccessful treatment after an injection. The effect of patient- and trigger finger-related characteristics on the outcome of an injection was assessed using stepwise manual backward multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results. Treatment with an injection was unsuccessful in 230 fingers (37.9%). Female sex (odds ratio (OR) 1.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.88)), Quinnell stage IV (OR 16.01 (95% CI 1.66 to 154.0)), heavy physical work (OR 1.60 (95% CI 0.96 to 2.67)), a third steroid injection (OR 2.02 (95% CI 1.06 to 3.88)), and having carpal tunnel syndrome (OR 1.59 (95% CI 0.98 to 2.59)) were associated with a higher risk of conversion to surgical release. In contrast, an older age (OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99)), smoking (OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.64)), and polypharmacy (OR 0.39, CI 0.12 to 1.12) were associated with a lower risk of conversion. The regression model predicted 15.6% of the variance found for the outcome of the injection treatment (R. 2. > 0.25). Conclusion. Factors associated with a worse outcome following a steroid injection were identified and should be considered when choosing the treatment of a trigger finger. In women with a trigger finger, the choice of treatment should take into account whether there are also one or more patient- or trigger-related factors that increase the risk of conversion to surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1142–1147

Aims. Corticosteroid injections are often used to manage glenohumeral arthritis in patients who may be candidates for future total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). In the conservative management of these patients, corticosteroid injections are often provided for symptomatic relief. The purpose of this study was to determine if the timing of corticosteroid injections prior to TSA or rTSA is associated with changes in rates of revision and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following these procedures. Methods. Data were collected from a national insurance database from January 2006 to December 2017. Patients who underwent shoulder corticosteroid injection within one year prior to ipsilateral TSA or rTSA were identified and stratified into the following cohorts: < three months, three to six months, six to nine months, and nine to 12 months from time of corticosteroid injection to TSA or rTSA. A control cohort with no corticosteroid injection within one year prior to TSA or rTSA was used for comparison. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the association between specific time intervals and outcomes. Results. In total, 4,252 patients were included in this study. Among those, 1,632 patients (38.4%) received corticosteroid injection(s) within one year prior to TSA or rTSA and 2,620 patients (61.6%) did not. On multivariate analysis, patients who received corticosteroid injection < three months prior to TSA or rTSA were at significantly increased risk for revision (odds ratio (OR) 2.61 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77 to 3.28); p < 0.001) when compared with the control cohort. However, there was no significant increase in revision risk for all other timing interval cohorts. Notably, Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 was a significant independent risk factor for all-cause revision (OR 4.00 (95% CI 1.40 to 8.92); p = 0.036). Conclusion. There is a time-dependent relationship between the preoperative timing of corticosteroid injection and the incidence of all-cause revision surgery following TSA or rTSA. This analysis suggests that an interval of at least three months should be maintained between corticosteroid injection and TSA or rTSA to minimize risks of subsequent revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):620–626

Aims. Recent studies have suggested that corticosteroid injections into the knee may harm the joint resulting in cartilage loss and possibly accelerating the progression of osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to assess whether patients with, or at risk of developing, symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee who receive intra-articular corticosteroid injections have an increased risk of requiring arthroplasty. Methods. We used data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a multicentre observational cohort study that followed 4,796 patients with, or at risk of developing, osteoarthritis of the knee on an annual basis with follow-up available up to nine years. Increased risk for symptomatic OA was defined as frequent knee symptoms (pain, aching, or stiffness) without radiological evidence of OA and two or more risk factors, while OA was defined by the presence of both femoral osteophytes and frequent symptoms in one or both knees. Missing data were imputed with multiple imputations using chained equations. Time-dependent propensity score matching was performed to match patients at the time of receving their first injection with controls. The effect of corticosteroid injections on the rate of subsequent (total and partial) knee arthroplasty was estimated using Cox proportional-hazards survival analyses. Results. After removing patients lost to follow-up, 3,822 patients remained in the study. A total of 249 (31.3%) of the 796 patients who received corticosteroid injections, and 152 (5.0%) of the 3,026 who did not, had knee arthroplasty. In the matched cohort, Cox proportional-hazards regression resulted in a hazard ratio of 1.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37 to 1.81; p < 0.001) and each injection increased the absolute risk of arthroplasty by 9.4% at nine years’ follow-up compared with those who did not receive injections. Conclusion. Corticosteroid injections seem to be associated with an increased risk of knee arthroplasty in patients with, or at risk of developing, symptomatic OA of the knee. These findings suggest that a conservative approach regarding the treatment of these patients with corticosteroid injections should be recommended. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):586–592

Aims. Cervical radiculopathy is a significant cause of pain and morbidity. For patients with severe and poorly controlled symptoms who may not be candidates for surgical management, treatment with transforaminal epidural steroid injections (CTFESI) has gained widespread acceptance. However, a paucity of high-quality evidence supporting their use balanced against perceived high risks of the procedure potentially undermines the confidence of clinicians who use the technique. We undertook a systematic review of the available literature regarding CTFESI to assess the clinical efficacy and complication rates of the procedure. Methods. OVID, MEDLINE, and Embase database searches were performed independently by two authors who subsequently completed title, abstract, and full-text screening for inclusion against set criteria. Clinical outcomes and complication data were extracted, and a narrative synthesis presented. Results. Six studies (three randomized controlled trials and three non-randomized observational studies; 443 patients) were included in the final review. The aggregate data support the efficacy of CTFESI in excess of the likely minimal clinically important difference. No major complications were described. Conclusion. There is increasing evidence supporting the efficacy of CTFESI. Concerns regarding the occurrence of catastrophic complications, widely shared in the case report and anecdotal literature, were not found when reviewing the best available evidence. However, the strength of these findings remains limited by the lack of highly powered high-level studies and the heterogeneity of the studies available. Further high-quality studies are recommended to address the issues of efficacy and safety with CTFESI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):567–574

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of repeat epidural steroid injections as a form of treatment for patients with insufficiently controlled or recurrent radicular pain due to a lumbar or cervical disc herniation. Patients and Methods. A cohort of 102 patients was prospectively followed, after an epidural steroid injection for radicular symptoms due to lumbar disc herniation, in 57 patients, and cervical disc herniation, in 45 patients. Those patients with persistent pain who requested a second injection were prospectively followed for one year. Radicular and local pain were assessed on a visual analogue scale (VAS), functional outcome with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or the Neck Pain and Disability Index (NPAD), as well as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12). Results. A second injection was performed in 17 patients (29.8%) with lumbar herniation and seven (15.6%) with cervical herniation at a mean of 65.3 days . (sd. 46.5) and 47 days . (sd. 37.2), respectively, after the initial injection. All but one patient, who underwent lumbar microdiscectomy, responded satisfactorily with a mean VAS for leg pain of 8.8 mm . (sd. 10.3) and a mean VAS for arm pain of 6.3 mm . (. sd. 9) one year after the second injection, respectively. Similarly, functional outcome and HRQoL were improved significantly from the baseline scores: mean ODI, 12.3 (. sd. 12.4; p < 0.001); mean NPAD, 19.3 (. sd. 24.3; p = 0.041); mean SF-12 physical component summary (PCS) in lumbar herniation, 46.8 (. sd. 7.7; p < 0.001); mean SF-12 PCS in cervical herniation, 43 (. sd. 6.8; p = 0.103). Conclusion. Repeat steroid injections are a justifiable form of treatment in symptomatic patients with lumbar or cervical disc herniation whose symptoms are not satisfactorily relieved after the first injection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1364–71

Aims. Although periarticular injection plays an important role in multimodal pain management following total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is no consensus on the optimal composition of the injection. In particular, it is not clear whether the addition of a corticosteroid improves the pain relief achieved nor whether it is associated with more complications than are observed without corticosteroid. The aim of this study was to quantify the safety and effectiveness of cortocosteroid use in periarticular injection during THA. Methods. We conducted a prospective, two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial involving patients scheduled for unilateral THA. A total of 187 patients were randomly assigned to receive periarticular injection containing either a corticosteroid (CS group) or without corticosteroid (no-CS group). Other perioperative interventions were identical for all patients. The primary outcome was postoperative pain at rest during the initial 24 hours after surgery. Pain score was recorded every three hours until 24 hours using a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). The primary outcome was assessed based on the area under the curve (AUC). Results. The CS group had a significantly lower AUC postoperatively at 0 to 24 hours compared to the no-CS group (AUC of VAS score at rest 550 ± 362 vs 392 ± 320, respectively; mean difference 158 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) 58 to 257; p = 0.0021). In point-by-point evaluation, the CS group had significantly lower VAS scores at 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, and 48 hours. There were no significant differences in complication rates, including surgical site infection, between the two groups. Conclusion. The addition of corticosteroid to periarticular injections reduces postoperative pain without increasing complication rate following THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1297–1302

Intra-articular punctures and injections are performed routinely on patients with injuries to and chronic diseases of joints, to release an effusion or haemarthrosis, or to inject drugs. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of placement of the needle during this procedure. A total of 76 cadaver acromioclavicular joints were injected with a solution containing methyl blue and subsequently dissected to distinguish intra- from peri-articular injection. In order to assess the importance of experience in achieving accurate placement, half of the injections were performed by an inexperienced resident and half by a skilled specialist. The specialist injected a further 20 cadaver acromioclavicular joints with the aid of an image intensifier. The overall frequency of peri-articular injection was much higher than expected at 43% (33 of 76) overall, with 42% (16 of 38) by the specialist and 45% (17 of 38) by the resident. The specialist entered the joint in all 20 cases when using the image intensifier. Correct positioning of the needle in the joint should be facilitated by fluoroscopy, thereby guaranteeing an intra-articular injection

Aims. Using a systematic review, we investigated whether there is an increased risk of post-operative infection in patients who have received an intra-articular corticosteroid injection to the hip for osteoarthritis prior to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. Studies dealing with an intra-articular corticosteroid injection to the hip and infection following subsequent THA were identified from databases for the period between 1990 to 2013. Retrieved articles were independently assessed for their methodological quality. Results. A total of nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Two recommended against a steroid injection prior to THA and seven found no risk with an injection. No prospective controlled trials were identified. Most studies were retrospective. Lack of information about the methodology was a consistent flaw. Conclusions. The literature in this area is scarce and the evidence is weak. Most studies were retrospective, and confounding factors were poorly defined or not addressed. There is thus currently insufficient evidence to conclude that an intra-articular corticosteroid injection administered prior to THA increases the rate of infection. High quality, multicentre randomised trials are needed to address this issue. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1027–35

We have assessed whether an epidural steroid injection is effective in the treatment of symptoms due to compression of a nerve root in the lumbar spine by carrying out a prospective, randomised, controlled trial in which patients received either an epidural steroid injection or an intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic and steroid. We assessed a total of 93 patients according to the Oxford pain chart and the Oswestry disability index and followed up for a minimum of two years. All the patients had been categorised as potential candidates for surgery. There was a significant reduction in pain early on in those having an epidural steroid injection but no difference in the long term between the two groups. The rate of subsequent operation in the groups was similar

Aim. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have several properties that may support their use as an early treatment option for osteoarthritis (OA). This study investigated the role of multiple injections of allogeneic bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSCs) to alleviate the progression of osteoarthritic changes in the various structures of the mature rabbit knee in an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient OA model. Materials and Methods. Two months after bilateral section of the ACL of Japanese white rabbits aged nine months or more, either phosphate buffered saline (PBS) or 1 x 10. 6. MSCs were injected into the knee joint in single or three consecutive doses. After two months, the articular cartilage and meniscus were assessed macroscopically, histologically, and immunohistochemically using collagen I and II. Results. Within the PBS injection (control group), typical progressive degenerative changes were revealed in the various knee structures. In the single MSC injection (single group), osteoarthritic changes were attenuated, but still appeared, especially in the medial compartments involving fibrillation of the articular cartilage, osteophyte formation in the medial plateau, and longitudinal tear of the meniscus. In the multiple-injections group, the smoothness and texture of the articular cartilage and meniscus were improved. Histologically, absence or reduction in matrix staining and cellularity were noticeable in the control and single-injection groups, respectively, in contrast to the multiple-injections group, which showed good intensity of matrix staining and chondrocyte distribution in the various cartilage zones. Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) scoring showed significantly better results in the multiple-injections group than in the other groups. Immunohistochemically, collagen I existed superficially in the medial femoral condyle in the single group, while collagen II was more evident in the multiple-injections group than the single-injection group. Conclusion. A single injection of MSCs was not enough to restore the condition of osteoarthritic joints. This is in contrast to multiple injections of MSCs, which had the ability to replace lost cells, as well as reducing inflammation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:824–831

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of a corticosteroid injection for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in patients with and without Raynaud’s phenomenon. Patients and Methods. In a prospective study, 139 patients with CTS were treated with a corticosteroid injection (10 mg triamcinolone acetonide); 34 had Raynaud’s phenomenon and 105 did not (control group). Grip strength, perception of touch with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament and the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaires (BCTQ) were assessed at baseline and at six, 12 and 24 weeks after the injection. The Cold Intolerance Severity Score (CISS) questionnaire was also assessed at baseline and 24 weeks after the injection

There is conflicting evidence about the benefit of using corticosteroid in periarticular injections for pain relief after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We carried out a double-blinded, randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of using corticosteroid in a periarticular injection to control pain after TKA. . A total of 77 patients, 67 women and ten men, with a mean age of 74 years (47 to 88) who were about to undergo unilateral TKA were randomly assigned to have a periarticular injection with or without corticosteroid. The primary outcome was post-operative pain at rest during the first 24 hours after surgery, measured every two hours using a visual analogue pain scale score. The cumulative pain score was quantified using the area under the curve. . The corticosteroid group had a significantly lower cumulative pain score than the no-corticosteroid group during the first 24 hours after surgery (mean area under the curve 139, 0 to 560, and 264, 0 to 1460; p = 0.024). The rate of complications, including surgical site infection, was not significantly different between the two groups up to one year post-operatively. . The addition of corticosteroid to the periarticular injection significantly decreased early post-operative pain. Further studies are needed to confirm the safety of corticosteroid in periarticular injection. Take home message: The use of corticosteroid in periarticular injection offered better pain relief during the initial 24 hours after TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:194–200

Intra-articular injections of steroid into the hip are used for a variety of reasons in current orthopaedic practice. Recently their safety prior to ipsilateral total hip replacement has been called into question owing to concerns about deep joint infection. We undertook a retrospective analysis of all patients who had undergone local anaesthetic and steroid injections followed by ipsilateral total hip replacement over a five-year period. Members of the surgical team, using a lateral approach to the hip, performed all the injections in the operating theatre using a strict aseptic technique. The mean time between injection and total hip replacement was 18 months (4 to 50). The mean follow-up after hip replacement was 25.8 months (9 to 78), during which time no case of deep joint sepsis was found. In our series, ipsilateral local anaesthetic and steroid injections have not conferred an increased risk of infection in total hip replacement. We believe that the practice of intra-articular local anaesthetic and steroid injections to the hip followed by total hip replacement is safer than previously reported

Immunosuppression following intra-articular injections of steroid into the hip may interfere with asepsis in a subsequent total hip arthroplasty (THA). We have undertaken a retrospective, matched, cohort study of infective complications after THA, in 40 patients who had received such an injection and 40 who had not. In the injection group there were five revisions, four of which were for deep infection. There were none in the matched group. The overall rate of revision in our database of 979 primary THAs was 1.02%. Six additional patients who had received injections underwent investigation for infection because of persistent problems in the hip as compared with one in the control group

This in vivo controlled laboratory study was performed to evaluate various intra-articular clinical injection regimes that might be less toxic than some in vitro studies suggest. We hypothesised that low-concentration, preservative-free, pH-balanced agents would be less toxic than high-concentration non-pH-balanced agents with preservatives, and that injections of individual agents are less toxic than combined injections. The left knees of 12- to 13-week-old Sprague–Dawley rats were injected once with eight different single agents, including low and high concentrations of ropivacaine and triamcinolone, alone and in combination, as well as negative and positive controls. The rats were killed at one week or five months, and live–dead staining was performed to quantify the death of chondrocytes. All injections except pH-balanced 0.2% ropivacaine combined with preservative-free 1 mg/ml triamcinolone acetonide resulted in statistically significant decreases in chondrocyte viability, compared with control knees, after one week and five months (p < 0.001). After one week there was no significant difference in viability between 0.2% and 0.5% ropivacaine; however, 4 mg/ml triamcinolone resulted in a lower viability than 1 mg/ml triamcinolone. Although many agents commonly injected into joints are chondrotoxic, in this in vivo study diluting preservative-free 10 mg/ml triamcinolone 1:9 in 0.2% pH-balanced ropivacaine resulted in low toxicity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:933–8

Injection or aspiration of the ankle may be performed through either an anteromedial or an anterolateral approach for diagnostic or therapeutic reasons. We evaluated the success of an intra-articular puncture in relation to its site in 76 ankles from 38 cadavers. Two orthopaedic surgical trainees each injected methylene blue dye into 18 of 38 ankles through an anterolateral approach and into 20 of 38 through an anteromedial. An arthrotomy was then performed to confirm the placement of the dye within the joint. Of the anteromedial injections 31 of 40 (77.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 64.6 to 90.4) were successful as were 31 of 36 (86.1%, 95% CI 74.8 to 97.4) anterolateral injections. In total 62 of 76 (81.6%, 95% CI 72.9 to 90.3) of the injections were intra-articular with a trend towards greater accuracy with the anterolateral approach, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.25). In the case of trainee A, 16 of 20 anteromedial injections and 14 of 18 anterolateral punctures were intra-articular. Trainee B made successful intra-articular punctures in 15 of 20 anteromedial and 17 of 18 anterolateral approaches. There was no significant difference between them (p = 0.5 and p = 0.16 for the anteromedial and anterolateral approaches, respectively). These results were similar to those of other reported studies. Unintended peri-articular injection can cause complications and an unsuccessful aspiration can delay diagnosis. Placement of the needle may be aided by the use of ultrasonographic scanning or fluoroscopy which may be required in certain instances