Shamma Ahmad Al-Nokhatha, Sinead Maguire, Luke Corcoran, Neil Mac Eoin, Richard Conway, Ciaran Johnson
{"title":"Effectiveness of Ultrasound-guided versus Landmark-based Glucocorticoid Injection in the Treatment of First Carpometacarpal Joint Osteoarthritis.","authors":"Shamma Ahmad Al-Nokhatha, Sinead Maguire, Luke Corcoran, Neil Mac Eoin, Richard Conway, Ciaran Johnson","doi":"10.24908/pocus.v8i2.16594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Osteoarthritis is a debilitating degenerative disease more pronounced in elderly affecting many joints. The first carpometacarpal joint (CMC1) is commonly affected. Pain is the major complaint, which can impact patient's daily activities. Intra-articular glucocorticoid injection can be considered if conservative measures fail and ultrasound guided injection might be superior to the traditional anatomic landmark-guided technique. <b>Objective:</b> The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided versus landmark-based approach to intra-articular CMC1 injection using the Australian Canadian osteoarthritis hand index (AUSCAN). <b>Methods:</b> Adult patients diagnosed with symptomatic CMC1 osteoarthritis who failed conservative measures were enrolled. In this prospective observational cohort study, utilizing a convenience sample, intra-articular corticosteroid injection was administered either by ultrasound-guided technique or landmark-based approach. Pain, stiffness and function in 10-points scale at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks were collected and analyzed using descriptive analysis. <b>Results:</b> There were 33 patients enrolled. Mean age was 63 years, with females making up the majority of participants (n = 28, 84.8%). Mean duration of CMC1 pain was 10 months (SD=2.5) up to the point of receiving the injection. Ultrasound guided injection was performed in 60.6% (n=20), while 39.4% (n=13) had the landmark approach. Both groups achieved a statistically and clinically significant level of change in AUSCAN score at week 6 (P≤ 0.05) but with a recurrence of symptoms at week 12 (P ≤ 0.05). At both intervals the AUSCAN scores were better than baseline (P ≤ 0.05). There was no difference between the two groups regarding baseline pain VAS score (mean ultrasound group= 6.6 vs landmark group= 7.5; P = 0.18). No significant differences were identified between two groups in terms of changes from baseline to 6, 12 and between 6 to 12 weeks in pain, stiffness and hand function (P > 0.05). <b>Conclusion:</b> No difference was found between the ultrasound-guided and landmark-based approaches for CMC1 injection on pain score, stiffness, or function.</p>","PeriodicalId":74470,"journal":{"name":"POCUS journal","volume":"8 2","pages":"230-236"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10721301/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"POCUS journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24908/pocus.v8i2.16594","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Osteoarthritis is a debilitating degenerative disease more pronounced in elderly affecting many joints. The first carpometacarpal joint (CMC1) is commonly affected. Pain is the major complaint, which can impact patient's daily activities. Intra-articular glucocorticoid injection can be considered if conservative measures fail and ultrasound guided injection might be superior to the traditional anatomic landmark-guided technique. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided versus landmark-based approach to intra-articular CMC1 injection using the Australian Canadian osteoarthritis hand index (AUSCAN). Methods: Adult patients diagnosed with symptomatic CMC1 osteoarthritis who failed conservative measures were enrolled. In this prospective observational cohort study, utilizing a convenience sample, intra-articular corticosteroid injection was administered either by ultrasound-guided technique or landmark-based approach. Pain, stiffness and function in 10-points scale at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks were collected and analyzed using descriptive analysis. Results: There were 33 patients enrolled. Mean age was 63 years, with females making up the majority of participants (n = 28, 84.8%). Mean duration of CMC1 pain was 10 months (SD=2.5) up to the point of receiving the injection. Ultrasound guided injection was performed in 60.6% (n=20), while 39.4% (n=13) had the landmark approach. Both groups achieved a statistically and clinically significant level of change in AUSCAN score at week 6 (P≤ 0.05) but with a recurrence of symptoms at week 12 (P ≤ 0.05). At both intervals the AUSCAN scores were better than baseline (P ≤ 0.05). There was no difference between the two groups regarding baseline pain VAS score (mean ultrasound group= 6.6 vs landmark group= 7.5; P = 0.18). No significant differences were identified between two groups in terms of changes from baseline to 6, 12 and between 6 to 12 weeks in pain, stiffness and hand function (P > 0.05). Conclusion: No difference was found between the ultrasound-guided and landmark-based approaches for CMC1 injection on pain score, stiffness, or function.