Evaluation of Needle Positioning During Blind Intra-Articular Hip Injections for Osteoarthritis: Fluoroscopy Versus Arthrography

Dıraçoğlu, Demirhan; Alptekin, Kerem; Dikici, Fatih; Balcı, Halil İbrahim; Özçakar, Levent; Aksoy, Cihan

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.08.137

Cited by 42 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Palpation-guided IA hip joint injection is relatively inaccurate; even with a careful technique, the accuracy is 67 % [18]. Fluoroscopy-guided IA injection can guide a needle into the hip joint and confirm IA placement after injection of contrast agent [19,20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound guided intra-articular ketorolac versus corticosteroid injection in osteoarthritis of the hip: a retrospective comparative study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound guided intra-articular ketorolac versus corticosteroid injection in osteoarthritis of the hip: a retrospective comparative study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intra-articular injections of hip joint are widely performed both for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes [1-4]. Hip joint injections are performed by various techniques and although some recommend fluoroscopy or USS guided technique [1, 2, 4], others claim that injections can be performed without imaging guidance [3, 5, 6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hip joint injections are performed by various techniques and although some recommend fluoroscopy or USS guided technique [1, 2, 4], others claim that injections can be performed without imaging guidance [3, 5, 6]. The advantage of the non-radiological method is that it is inexpensive and avoids radiation, risk of contrast reaction and inpatient admission.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do We Need Radiological Guidance for Intra-Articular Hip Injections?

Singh¹,

Khan²,

Marwah³

et al. 2014

TOORTHJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is still a debate as to whether radiological guidance is needed for intra-articular hip injections. The aim of this study was to evaluate correct needle positioning for the hip joint performed with a non-radiological method and confirmed on arthrogram under image intensifier.Patients listed for diagnostic and therapeutic hip joint injections were included in our study. Eighty seven patients (100 hips) underwent injections with the non-radiological method using anatomical landmarks. Fluoroscopy and arthrogram were then used to confirm the needle position. The primary outcome measure was the success rate of correct positioning of the needle in hip joint by the non-radiological method, as confirmed on arthrogram under image intensifier. The secondary outcome measures were relationship between the grade of the surgeon and patient BMI to success rate of hip injections by the non-radiological method.Overall success rate with the non-radiological method was 67%. Consultants were 77.1% successful and registrars 57.7% (P = 0.039). The average body mass index (BMI) in the successful group was 28.45 (SD = 5.21) and 32.03 (SD = 4.84) in the unsuccessful group (p=0.001). Success was further improved to 88% when performed by a consultant in low BMI (< 30) patients.This prospective study shows that hip injections can be performed with reasonable success without radiological guidance. Experienced surgeons may be able to perform this procedure in outpatient clinics in normal BMI patients; thereby reducing costs and the need for bed space.

show abstract

“…For patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria the procedure entailed a 8-ml venous blood sample (see above). Ultrasound (GE Healthcare, Logiq P5 pro) was used as guidance for performing the IA procedure in all cases [24]. The injection was performed under sterile conditions by means of a 3.5 MHz convex probe.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intra-articular hyaluronic acid vs platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis.

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

viscosupplementation (hyaluronic acid [HA]) in hip osteoarthritis. Material and methods: A total of 43 patients affected by monolateral severe hip osteoarthritis (OA) were included in the study. Patients were randomized to receive either intra-articular PRP (3 ml) or HA (30 mg/2 ml; 1,000-2,900 kDa), 3 injections in total – 1/week. Clinical assessments for each patient were made at baseline (T0), 4 (T1), and 16 weeks (T2) of follow-up. The primary efficacy outcome was pain reduction as measured by VAS and by WOMAC pain subscale. Results: Data analysis revealed that, compared to T0, in the PRP-treated group VAS scores significantly decreased at T1 but not at T2, thereby indicating an early effect on pain which was not maintained at a longer term follow-up. In the HA group a significant decrease of both VAS and WOMAC values was registered only between T0 and T2. Conclusions: Intra-articular PRP had an immediate effect on pain that was not maintained at longer term follow-up when, on the contrary, the effects of intra-articular HA were evident.

show abstract

Evaluation of Needle Positioning During Blind Intra-Articular Hip Injections for Osteoarthritis: Fluoroscopy Versus Arthrography

Cited by 42 publications

References 13 publications

Ultrasound guided intra-articular ketorolac versus corticosteroid injection in osteoarthritis of the hip: a retrospective comparative study

Ultrasound guided intra-articular ketorolac versus corticosteroid injection in osteoarthritis of the hip: a retrospective comparative study

Do We Need Radiological Guidance for Intra-Articular Hip Injections?

Intra-articular hyaluronic acid vs platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About