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. 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

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

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. To achieve expert clinical consensus in the delivery of hydrodilatation for the treatment of primary frozen shoulder to inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation. Methods. We conducted a two-stage, electronic questionnaire-based, modified Delphi survey of shoulder experts in the UK NHS. Round one required positive, negative, or neutral ratings about hydrodilatation. In round two, each participant was reminded of their round one responses and the modal (or ‘group’) response from all participants. This allowed participants to modify their responses in round two. We proposed respectively mandating or encouraging elements of hydrodilatation with 100% and 90% positive consensus, and respectively disallowing or discouraging with 90% and 80% negative consensus. Other elements would be optional. Results. Between 4 August 2020 and 4 August 2021, shoulder experts from 47 hospitals in the UK completed the study. There were 106 participants (consultant upper limb orthopaedic surgeons, n = 50; consultant radiologists, n = 52; consultant physiotherapist, n = 1; extended scope physiotherapists, n = 3) who completed round one, of whom 97 (92%) completed round two. No elements of hydrodilatation were “mandated” (100% positive rating). Elements that were “encouraged” (≥ 80% positive rating) were the use of image guidance, local anaesthetic, normal saline, and steroids to deliver the injection. Injecting according to patient tolerance, physiotherapy, and home exercises were also “encouraged”. No elements were “discouraged” (≥ 80% negative rating) although using hypertonic saline was rated as being “disallowed” (≥ 90% negative rating). Conclusion. In the absence of rigorous evidence, our Delphi study allowed us to achieve expert consensus about positive, negative, and neutral ratings of hydrodilatation in the management of frozen shoulder in a hospital setting. This should inform clinical practice and the design of an intervention for evaluation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):701–709

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

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

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

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

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

We reviewed 231 patients who had undergone total knee replacement with an AGC (Biomet) implant over a period of 2.5 years. After applying exclusion criteria and with some loss to follow-up, there were 144 patients available for study. These were divided into two groups; those who had received intra-articular steroid in the 11 months before surgery and those who had not. There were three deep infections, all of which occurred in patients who had received a steroid injection. The incidence of superficial infection was not significantly different in the two groups. Five patients had undergone investigation for suspected deep infection because of persistent swelling or pain and all of these had received an intra-articular injection pre-operatively. We conclude that the decision to administer intra-articular steroids to a patient who may be a candidate for total knee replacement should not be taken lightly because of a risk of post-operative deep infection

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

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

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