Comparison of intra-articular injections of Hyaluronic Acid and Corticosteroid in the treatment of Osteoarthritis of the hip in comparison with intra-articular injections of Bupivacaine. Design of a prospective, randomized, controlled study with blinding of the patients and outcome assessors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although intra-articular hyaluronic acid is well established as a treatment for osteoarthritis of the knee, its use in hip osteoarthritis is not based on large randomized controlled trials. There is a need for more rigorously designed studies on hip osteoarthritis treatment as this subject is still very much under debate.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Randomized, controlled trial with a three-armed, parallel-group design. Approximately 315 patients complying with the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be randomized into one of the following treatment groups: infiltration of the hip joint with hyaluronic acid, with a corticosteroid or with 0.125% bupivacaine.</p> <p>The following outcome measure instruments will be assessed at baseline, i.e. before the intra-articular injection of one of the study products, and then again at six weeks, 3 and 6 months after the initial injection: Pain (100 mm VAS), Harris Hip Score and HOOS, patient assessment of their clinical status (worse, stable or better then at the time of enrollment) and intake of pain rescue medication (number per week). In addition patients will be asked if they have complications/adverse events. The six-month follow-up period for all patients will begin on the date the first injection is administered.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This randomized, controlled, three-arm study will hopefully provide robust information on two of the intra-articular treatments used in hip osteoarthritis, in comparison to bupivacaine.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT01079455</p

Tibiofibular syndesmosis in acute ankle fractures: additional value of an oblique MR image plane

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: To evaluate the additional value of a 45� oblique MRI scan plane for assessing the anterior and posterior distal tibiofibular syndesmotic ligaments in patients with an acute ankle fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospectively, data were collected for 44 consecutive patients with an acute ankle fracture who underwent a radiograph (AP, lateral, and mortise view) as well as an MRI in both the standard three orthogonal planes and in an additional 45� oblique plane. The fractures on the radiographs were classified according to Lauge-Hansen (LH). The anterior (ATIFL) and posterior (PTIFL) distal tibiofibular ligaments, as well as the presence of a bony avulsion in both the axial and oblique planes was evaluated on MRI. MRI findings regarding syndesmotic injury in the axial and oblique planes were compared to syndesmotic injury predicted by LH. Kappa and the agreement score were calculated to determine the interobserver agreement. The Wilcoxon signed rank test and McNemar's test were used to compare the two scan planes. RESULTS: The interobserver agreement (?) and agreement score [AS (\%)] regarding injury of the ATIFL and PTIFL and the presence of a fibular or tibial avulsion fracture were good to excellent in both the axial and oblique image planes (? 0.61-0.92, AS 84-95\%). For both ligaments the oblique image plane indicated significantly less injury than the axial plane (p?<?0.001). There was no significant difference in detection of an avulsion fracture in the axial or oblique plane, neither anteriorly (p?=?0.50) nor posteriorly (p?=?1.00). With syndesmotic injury as predicted by LH as comparison, the specificity in the oblique MR plane increased for both anterior (to 86\% from 7\%) and posterior (to 86\% from 48\%) syndesmotic injury when compared to the axial plane. CONCLUSION: Our results show the additional value of an 45� oblique MR image plane for detection of injury of the anterior and posterior distal tibiofibular syndesmoses in acute ankle fractures. Findings of syndesmotic injury in the oblique MRI plane were closer to the diagnosis as assumed by the Lauge-Hansen classification than in the axial plane. With more accurate information, the surgeon can better decide when to stabilize syndesmotic injury in acute ankle fractures

To retain or remove the syndesmotic screw: a review of literature

Introduction: Syndesmotic positioning screws are frequently placed in unstable ankle fractures. Many facets of adequate placement techniques have been the subject of various studies. Whether or not the syndesmosis screw should be removed prior to weight-bearing is still debated. In this study, the recent literature is reviewed concerning the need for removal of the syndesmotic screw. Materials and methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the electronic databases of the Cochrane Library, Pubmed Medline and EMbase from January 2000 to October 2010. Results: A total of seven studies were identified in the literature. Most studies found no difference in outcome between retained or removed screws. Patients with screws that were broken, or showed loosening, had similar or improved outcome compared to patients with removed screws. Removal of the syndesmotic screws, when deemed necessary, is usually not performed before 8-12 weeks. Conclusion: There is paucity in randomized controlled trials on the absolute need for removal of the syndesmotic screw. However, current literature suggests that it might be reserved for intact screws that cause hardware irritation or reduced range of motion after 4-6 months

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions.

BACKGROUND: Assistive products are items which allow older people and people with disabilities to be able to live a healthy, productive and dignified life. It has been estimated that approximately 1.5% of the world's population need a prosthesis or orthosis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review the evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions. METHODS: Literature searches, completed in September 2015, were carried out in fourteen databases between years 1995 and 2015. The search results were independently screened by two reviewers. For the purpose of this manuscript, only randomized controlled trials which examined interventions using orthotic or prosthetic devices were selected for data extraction and synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 342 randomised controlled trials were identified (319 English language and 23 non-English language). Only 4 of these randomised controlled trials examined prosthetic interventions and the rest examined orthotic interventions. These orthotic interventions were categorised based on the medical conditions/injuries of the participants. From these studies, this review focused on the medical condition/injuries with the highest number of randomised controlled trials (osteoarthritis, fracture, stroke, carpal tunnel syndrome, plantar fasciitis, anterior cruciate ligament, diabetic foot, rheumatoid and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankle sprain, cerebral palsy, lateral epicondylitis and low back pain). The included articles were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Details of the clinical population examined, the type of orthotic/prosthetic intervention, the comparator/s and the outcome measures were extracted. Effect sizes and odds ratios were calculated for all outcome measures, where possible. CONCLUSIONS: At present, for prosthetic and orthotic interventions, the scientific literature does not provide sufficient high quality research to allow strong conclusions on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness