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

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. A local injection may be used as an early option in the treatment of Morton’s neuroma, and can be performed using various medications. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of injections of hyaluronic acid compared with corticosteroid in the treatment of this condition. Methods. A total of 91 patients were assessed for this trial, of whom 45 were subsequently included and randomized into two groups. One patient was lost to follow-up, leaving 22 patients (24 feet) in each group. The patients in the hyaluronic acid group were treated with three ultrasound-guided injections (one per week) of hyaluronic acid (Osteonil Plus). Those in the corticosteroid group were treated with three ultrasound-guided injections (also one per week) of triamcinolone (Triancil). The patients were evaluated before treatment and at one, three, six, and 12 months after treatment. The primary outcome measure was the visual analogue scale for pain (VAS). Secondary outcome measures included the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, and complications. Results. Both groups showed significant improvement in VAS and AOFAS scores (p < 0.05) after 12 months. The corticosteroid group had a significantly greater reduction in VAS and increase in AOFAS scores compared with the hyaluronic acid group, at one, three, and six months, but with no significant difference at 12 months. There were no complications in the hyaluronic acid group. There were minor local complications in six patients (six feet) (25.0%) in the corticosteroid group, all with discolouration of the skin at the site of the injection. These minor complications might have been due to the three weekly injections of a relatively high dose of corticosteroid. No patient subsequently underwent excision of the neuroma. Conclusion. An ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection showed statistically significantly better functional and pain outcomes than an ultrasound-guided injection of hyaluronic acid for the treatment of a Morton’s neuroma at many timepoints. Thus, a corticosteroid injection should be regarded as a primary option in the treatment of these patients, and the only indication for an injection of hyaluronic acid might be in patients in whom corticosteroid is contraindicated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1093–1099

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. 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

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

We performed a prospective, randomised trial on 106 patients to compare the effects of local corticosteroid injections with physiotherapy as advocated by Cyriax in the treatment of tennis elbow. The main outcome measures were the severity of pain, pain provoked by resisted dorsiflexion of the wrist, and patient satisfaction. At six weeks 22 of 53 patients in the injection group were free from pain compared with only three in the physiotherapy group. In the corticosteroid-treated group 26 patients had no pain on resisted dorsiflexion of the wrist compared with only three in the physiotherapy group. Thirty-five patients who had injections and 14 who had physiotherapy were satisfied with the outcome of treatment at six weeks. At the final assessment there were 18 excellent and 18 good results in the corticosteroid group and one excellent and 12 good results in the physiotherapy group. There was a significant increase in grip strength in both groups but those with injections had a significantly better result. After one year there were no significant differences between the two groups. Half of the patients, however, had received only the initial treatment, 20% had had combined therapy and 30% had had surgery. We conclude that at six weeks, treatment with corticosteroid injections was more effective than Cyriax physiotherapy and we recommend it because of its rapid action, reduction of pain and absence of side-effects

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

The systemic use of steroids and habitual alcohol intake are two major causative factors in the development of idiopathic osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). To examine any interaction between oral corticosteroid use and alcohol intake on the risk of ONFH, we conducted a hospital-based case-control study of 71 cases with ONFH (mean age 45 years (20 to 79)) and 227 matched controls (mean age 47 years (18 to 79)). Alcohol intake was positively associated with ONFH among all subjects: the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of subjects with ≥ 3032 drink-years was 3.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 13.1) compared with never-drinkers. When stratified by steroid use, the OR of such drinkers was 11.1 (95% CI 1.30 to 95.5) among those who had never used steroids, but 1.10 (95% CI 0.21 to 4.79) among those who had. When we assessed any interaction based on a two-by-two table of alcohol and steroid use, the OR of those non-drinkers who did use steroids was markedly elevated (OR 31.5) compared with users of neither. However, no further increase in OR was noted for the effect of using both (OR 31.6). We detected neither a multiplicative nor an additive interaction (p for multiplicative interaction 0.19; synergy index 0.95), suggesting that the added effect of alcohol may be trivial compared with the overwhelming effect of steroids in the development of ONFH. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:320–5

A 13-year-old girl presented with a two-year history of pain in the right thigh and right forearm. Engelmann's disease was diagnosed on the basis of radiological appearances and histological examination of the bone. Her symptoms subsided after biopsy of the bone, but two weeks later she developed severe pain in the left tibia and was unable to walk. Radiological features of Engelmann's disease were found in the left tibia and other long bones although these bones had been radiologically normal one month previously. Treatment with prednisolone gave rapid relief of pain and allowed the patient to become mobile again. Four months later the radiological appearances showed significant improvement. The use of corticosteroids in this disorder is discussed

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

Aims. To determine whether platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection improves outcomes two years after acute Achilles tendon rupture. Methods. A randomized multicentre two-arm parallel-group, participant- and assessor-blinded superiority trial was undertaken. Recruitment commenced on 28 July 2015 and two-year follow-up was completed in 21 October 2019. Participants were 230 adults aged 18 years and over, with acute Achilles tendon rupture managed with non-surgical treatment from 19 UK hospitals. Exclusions were insertion or musculotendinous junction injuries, major leg injury or deformity, diabetes, platelet or haematological disorder, medication with systemic corticosteroids, anticoagulation therapy treatment, and other contraindicating conditions. Participants were randomized via a central online system 1:1 to PRP or placebo injection. The main outcome measure was Achilles Tendon Rupture Score (ATRS) at two years via postal questionnaire. Other outcomes were pain, recovery goal attainment, and quality of life. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Results. A total of 230 participants were randomized, 114 to PRP and 116 to placebo. Two-year questionnaires were sent to 216 participants who completed a six-month questionnaire. Overall, 182/216 participants (84%) completed the two-year questionnaire. Participants were aged a mean of 46 years (SD 13.0) and 25% were female (57/230). The majority of participants received the allocated intervention (219/229, 96%). Mean ATRS scores at two years were 82.2 (SD 18.3) in the PRP group (n = 85) and 83.8 (SD 16.0) in the placebo group (n = 92). There was no evidence of a difference in the ATRS at two years (adjusted mean difference -0.752, 95% confidence interval -5.523 to 4.020; p = 0.757) or in other secondary outcomes, and there were no re-ruptures between 24 weeks and two years. Conclusion. PRP injection did not improve patient-reported function or quality of life two years after acute Achilles tendon rupture compared with placebo. The evidence from this study indicates that PRP offers no patient benefit in the longer term for patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1256–1265

Peri-tendinous injection of local anaesthetic, both alone and in combination with corticosteroids, is commonly performed in the treatment of tendinopathies. Previous studies have shown that local anaesthetics and corticosteroids are chondrotoxic, but their effect on tenocytes remains unknown. We compared the effects of lidocaine and ropivacaine, alone or combined with dexamethasone, on the viability of cultured bovine tenocytes. Tenocytes were exposed to ten different conditions: 1) normal saline; 2) 1% lidocaine; 3) 2% lidocaine; 4) 0.2% ropivacaine; 5) 0.5% ropivacaine; 6) dexamethasone (dex); 7) 1% lidocaine+dex; 8) 2% lidocaine+dex; 9) 0.2% ropivacaine+dex; and 10) 0.5% ropivacaine+dex, for 30 minutes. After a 24-hour recovery period, the viability of the tenocytes was quantified using the CellTiter-Glo viability assay and fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) for live/dead cell counts. A 30-minute exposure to lidocaine alone was significantly toxic to the tenocytes in a dose-dependent manner, but a 30-minute exposure to ropivacaine or dexamethasone alone was not significantly toxic. Dexamethasone potentiated ropivacaine tenocyte toxicity at higher doses of ropivacaine, but did not potentiate lidocaine tenocyte toxicity. As seen in other cell types, lidocaine has a dose-dependent toxicity to tenocytes but ropivacaine is not significantly toxic. Although dexamethasone alone is not toxic, its combination with 0.5% ropivacaine significantly increased its toxicity to tenocytes. These findings might be relevant to clinical practice and warrant further investigation

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

We have carried out a prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial to compare the efficacy of a single subacromial injection of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, tenoxicam, with a single injection of methylprednisolone in patients with subacromial impingement. A total of 58 patients were randomly allocated into two groups. Group A received 40 mg of methylprednisolone and group B 20 mg of tenoxicam as a subacromial injection along with lignocaine. The Constant-Murley shoulder score was used as the primary outcome measure and the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) as secondary measures. Six weeks after injection the improvement in the Constant-Murley score was significantly greater in the methylprednisolone group (p = 0.003) than in the tenoxicam group. The improvement in the DASH score was greater in the steroid group and the difference was statistically significant and consistent two (p < 0.01), four (p < 0.01) and six weeks (p < 0.020) after the injection. The improvement in the OSS was consistently greater in the steroid group than in the tenoxicam group. Although the difference was statistically significant at two (p < 0.001) and four (p = 0.003) weeks after the injection, it was not at six weeks (p = 0.055). Subacromial injection of tenoxicam does not offer an equivalent outcome to subacromial injection of corticosteroid at six weeks. Corticosteroid is significantly better than tenoxicam for improving shoulder function in tendonitis of the rotator cuff after six weeks

1. Because of the controversy over the clinical effects of corticosteroids on joint tissues a series of experiments on the knee joints of rabbits was undertaken. 2. The articular cartilage of the distal femoral epiphyses of normalcontrols has been compared with that of rabbits treated daily either with cortisone or with methyl prednisolone systemically or by intra-articular injections. 3. The changes caused by intravenous papain and their subsequent recovery have been described, and the adverse effect of corticosteroids on recovery has been assessed. 4. The biological mechanisms involved are discussed, and as a result caution is urged in the administration of corticosteroids in the presence of progressive degenerative joint disease

We have performed a prospective double-blind, randomised controlled trial over two years to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an intra-operative peri-articular injection of triamcinolone acetonide in patients undergoing medial unicondylar knee replacement. We randomised 90 patients into two equal groups. The study group received an injection of triamcinolone acetonide, bupivacaine, and epinephrine into the peri-articular tissues at the end of the operation. The control group received the same injection mixture but without the addition of triamcinolone. The peri-operative analgesic regimen was standardised. The study group reported a significant reduction in pain (p = 0.014 at 12 hours, p = 0.031 at 18 hours and p = 0.031 at 24 hours) and had a better range of movement (p = 0.023 at three months). There was no significant difference in the rate of infection and no incidence of tendon rupture in either group. The addition of corticosteroid to the peri-articular injection after unicondylar knee replacement had both immediate and short-term benefits in terms of relief from pain, and rehabilitation with no increased risk of infection

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a chronic disease of childhood; it causes joint damage which may require surgical intervention, often in the young adult. The aim of this study was to describe the long-term outcome and survival of hip replacement in a group of adult patients with JIA and to determine predictors of survival for the prosthesis. In this retrospective comparative study patients were identified from the database of a regional specialist adult JIA clinic. This documented a series of 47 hip replacements performed in 25 adult patients with JIA. Surgery was performed at a mean age of 27 years (11 to 47), with a mean follow-up of 19 years (2 to 36). The mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire (WOMAC) score at the last follow-up was 53 (19 to 96) and the mean Health Assessment Questionnaire score was 2.25 (0 to 3). The mean pain component of the WOMAC score (60 (20 to 100)) was significantly higher than the mean functional component score (46 (0 to 97)) (p = 0.02). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed a survival probability of 46.6% (95% confidence interval 37.5 to 55.7) at 19 years, with a trend towards enhanced survival with the use of a cemented acetabular component and a cementless femoral component. This was not, however, statistically significant (acetabular component, p = 0.76, femoral component, p = 0.45). Cox’s proportional hazards regression analysis showed an implant survival rate of 54.9% at 19 years at the mean of covariates. Survival of the prosthesis was significantly poorer (p = 0.001) in patients who had been taking long-term corticosteroids and significantly better (p = 0.02) in patients on methotrexate