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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avascular necrosis of bone is a well-recognised phenomenon in patients on long-term steroid therapy, especially after renal transplantation. There are only four cases reported in the literature of multifocal avascular necrosis after short-term high-dose steroid therapy, and three additional cases are reported in this paper. All the hips have needed reconstructive surgery within two and a half years of the onset of symptoms; in one patient, however, this has been prevented by other medical problems. In two of the three patients reported in this paper the shoulders also were affected; eventually they became pain-free but movement was restricted. Short-term high-dose steroid therapy has only recently been recognised as a cause of avascular necrosis and attempts should be made to prevent the incidence increasing

1. A case of disruption of patellar ligament is described. 2. An association with previous steroid infiltration is present in this case

We undertook a prospective, randomised study to compare the analgesic effect of injection of steroid and of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy (ESWT) for the treatment of tennis elbow. Group 1 received a single injection of 20 mg of triamcinolone with lignocaine while group 2 received 2000 shock waves in three sessions at weekly intervals. After six weeks there was a significant difference between the groups with the mean pain score for the injection group falling from 66 to 21 compared with a decrease from 61 to 35 in the shock-wave group (p = 0.05). After three months, 84% of patients in group 1 were considered to have had successful treatment compared with 60% in group 2. In the medium term local injection of steroid is more successful and 100 times less expensive than ESWT in the treatment of tennis elbow

A total of 63 women who had an operation for a fracture of the hip was randomly allocated to one year of treatment either with anabolic steroids, vitamin D and calcium (anabolic group) or with calcium only (control group). The thigh muscle volume was measured by quantitative CT. The bone mineral density of the hip, femur and tibia was assessed by quantitative CT and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and of the heel by quantitative ultrasound. Quantitative CT showed that the anabolic group did not lose muscle volume during the first 12 months whereas the control group did (p< 0.01). There was less bone loss in the proximal tibia in the anabolic group than in the control group. The speed of gait and the Harris hip score were significantly better in the anabolic group after six and 12 months. Anabolic steroids, even in this moderate dose, given in combination with vitamin D and calcium had a beneficial effect on muscle volume, bone mineral density and clinical function in this group of elderly women

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.