Objectives: This systematic review was designed to summarize randomized controlled trials of intra-articular administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for temporomandibular disorders. Methods: Randomized controlled trials regarding intra-articular injections of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for temporomandibular disorders were included in the review. The final search was conducted on 16 June 2024 in the Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, PubMed, and Scopus databases. Results: Of the 173 identified studies, 6 were eligible for review. In trials comparing arthrocentesis alone to arthrocentesis with NSAIDs, slight differences in joint pain were noted. For tenoxicam, differences were under 1 point on a 0-10 scale after 4 weeks, with inconsistent results. Piroxicam showed no significant difference, and pain levels were minimal in both groups. For maximum mouth opening (MMO), tenoxicam showed no significant difference. Piroxicam increased MMO by nearly 5 mm, based on one small trial with bias concerns. Conclusions: Currently, there is no strong scientific evidence supporting the injection of NSAIDs into the temporomandibular joint to relieve pain or increase jaw movement. Preliminary reports on piroxicam with arthrocentesis and tenoxicam or diclofenac without rinsing justify further research.

This rapid review summarizes the latest primary research in temporomandibular joint (TMJ) injection treatment. The final literature searches were conducted on 4 January 2024. Selection was performed systematically following predefined eligibility criteria. Randomized control trials concerning the treatment of TMJ disorders with intra-articular injections were included. Studies on more invasive interventions were excluded. Quality of life, joint pain and range of mandibular mobility were assessed. Ultimately, 12 studies covering a total of 603 patients qualified. They concerned: (1) arthrocentesis (AC) and the administration of, (2) injectable platelet-rich fibrin (I-PRF), (3) platelet-rich plasma (PRP), (4) hyaluronic acid (HA), (5) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and (6) hypertonic dextrose (HD) with a local anesthetic. The dominant approach was to perform arthrocentesis before administering the appropriate injection substance (I-PRF, PRP, HA, or NSAID). Two current studies on the intra-articular administration of NSAIDs, specifically tenoxicam and piroxicam, are noteworthy. A mixture of PRP and HA was injected in another two trials. These two innovative approaches may prove to be significant directions for further research on injection treatment of TMJs.

Background Knee osteoarthritis (KOA), a degenerative joint disease, is a common cause of chronic knee pain and disability in adults. Conservative management options are the first-line approach, but intra-articular injections, such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA), are considered for advanced cases. This study aims to compare the efficacy of PRP versus HA injections in patients with advanced KOA. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on 145 patients with advanced KOA. Seventy patients received PRP injections, while 75 patients received HA injections. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score were employed to evaluate the treatment\'s efficacy. Adverse events associated with these injections were also recorded. Results Both PRP and HA injections significantly reduced pain and improved joint function in patients with advanced KOA. PRP injections were slightly more effective than HA injections in reducing pain scores. Both treatments showed similar improvements in functional outcomes. Adverse events were minimal and self-limiting for both treatments. Conclusions Both PRP and HA injections effectively ameliorate advanced KOA by reducing pain and improving function. PRP injections showed a slightly greater improvement in pain scores and functional outcomes. The choice between PRP and HA injections may depend on factors like cost, availability, and patient preference. Further research is needed to validate these findings and understand treatment suitability for different patient populations.

Cartilage degeneration is a characteristic of osteoarthritis (OA), which is often observed in aging populations. This degeneration is due to the breakdown of articular cartilage (AC) mechanical and tribological properties primarily attributed to lubrication failure. Understanding the reasons behind these failures and identifying potential solutions could have significant economic and societal implications, ultimately enhancing quality of life. This review provides an overview of developments in the field of AC, focusing on its mechanical and tribological properties. The emphasis is on the role of lubrication in degraded AC, offering insights into its structure and function relationship. Further, it explores the fundamental connection between AC mechano-tribological properties and the advancement of its degradation and puts forth recommendations for strategies to boost its lubrication efficiency.

Osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease caused by the wear and tear of joint cartilage. The definitive and resolving treatment is prosthetic replacement of the articular surface, the demand of which is on the rise for patients with mild to moderate severity. However, a conservative strategy may be considered that aims to reduce and contain pain symptoms by postponing surgical treatment in the case of worsening that can no longer be otherwise controlled. Intra-articular infiltrations, like other therapeutic strategies, are not without complications, and among these the most feared is joint infection, especially in anticipation of future prosthetic replacement. Is important to avoid periprosthetic joint infections because they represent one of the third most common reasons for revision surgery. Using cases found in the literature, the aim of this article is to determine if there is a real correlation between the type of injections, the number of doses injected and the time between infiltrations and the surgical procedure.

Objectives: This overview was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews guidelines and aimed to collect and compare the results of systematic reviews on temporomandibular joint injection treatment. Methods: Systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials on temporomandibular disorders treated with lavage or intra-articular administrations were qualified for syntheses. The final searches were conducted on 27 February 2024, without time frame restrictions. Results: Of the 232 identified records, 42 systematic reviews were selected. The most evidence-based conclusions call into question the clinical differences between many therapeutic approaches, including the following: (1) injectable selection for the treatment of pain and hypomobility; (2) the method of performing arthrocentesis; (3) the use of imaging when rinsing the TMJ cavity; (4) the supplementation of the extracapsular administration of unprocessed blood with intracapsular deposition in the treatment of TMJ hypermobility. Conclusions: Systematic reviews based solely on randomized clinical trials proved the following differences: (1) in painful temporomandibular hypomobility, a better therapeutic effect is observed with arthrocentesis followed by I-PRF administration compared to lavage alone; (2) in painful temporomandibular hypomobility, inferior- or double-compartment injection leads to better results than superior-compartment injection; (3) in temporomandibular joint recurrent dislocation, hypertonic dextrose administration is superior to placebo, although (4) unprocessed blood has a better effect than hypertonic dextrose. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024496142.

UNASSIGNED: Rapidly progressive hip osteoarthritis (OA) leading to femoral head collapse (FHC) following intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid injections is a perplexing variant of OA. We explored eight cases of chronic joint pain treated with IA corticosteroid injections. Subsequently, they experienced swift deterioration of the femoral head integrity within as little as 10 weeks. These cases underscore the need for a comprehensive assessment of risk factors versus benefits in this patient population.
UNASSIGNED: The study reveals a complex interplay between comorbidities, treatments, and outcomes. Patients exhibited various health factors, including obesity, smoking history, cancer treatment, and deficiencies in Vitamin D levels, which have been found to increase the risk of FHC. Furthermore, the study explores the chondrotoxicity of corticosteroids and local anesthetics used in IA injections. In vitro studies show complete loss of chondrocyte viability after a single dose of corticosteroids, potentially leading to cartilage degradation. In addition, local anesthetics may induce cellular demise and structural alterations in the articular cartilage. These factors highlight various influences affecting treatment outcomes in patients with OA.
UNASSIGNED: In conclusion, this case series highlights the rare adverse outcome of rapidly progressive hip OA and FHC following IA corticosteroid injections and possible risk factors. While a definitive etiology remains unclear, the study provides valuable conclusions to aid in future treatment decision-making.

UNASSIGNED: Current treatment for knee Osteoarthritis (OA) includes exercise and intra-articular injections with corticosteroid (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), etc., which address OA-related pain and functional limitation. While these interventions can be given together, little is known about the efficacy of a multi-modal approach. The purpose of this scoping review is to examine studies that compare combining exercise and intra-articular knee injections to exercise alone for the management of knee OA.
UNASSIGNED: A search was performed using PubMed, CINAHL, and Clinicaltrials.gov with MeSH terms \"knee osteoarthritis\" AND \"exercise\" AND \"injections\". Abstracts were screened to meet inclusion criteria of both intervention groups including exercise and one group receiving an injection for treatment of knee OA. Full text articles were screened to meet inclusion criteria and rated using the Pedro Scale.
UNASSIGNED: 11 studies that met inclusion criteria. The included studies utilized CS, hyaluronic acid (HA), and Bone Marrow Concentrate (BMC), botulinum toxin A, or a combination of dextrose and lidocaine injections. Most studies included supervised exercise interventions with all studies including strengthening of the quadriceps. CS and exercise compared to exercise alone showed similar improvements in pain. The HA injection studies yielded mixed results with two studies finding HA and exercise was not superior than exercise alone while two other studies found that HA and exercise were superior.
UNASSIGNED: There was a paucity of literature investigating multimodal approaches. Most of the included studies did not find superior effects of adding a knee injection to exercise compared to exercise alone for knee OA.

UNASSIGNED: Intra-articular injections are commonly used to manage joint pathologies, including osteoarthritis. While conventional ultrasound (US) guidance has generally improved intra-articular injection accuracy, forefoot and midfoot joint interventions are still often performed without imaging guidance. This pilot study aims to evaluate the efficacy of office-based, portable ultrasound (P-US) guided intra-articular injections for forefoot and midfoot joint pain caused by various degenerative pathologies.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective analysis was conducted on a series of consecutive patients who underwent P-US guided intra-articular injections following a chief complaint of forefoot or midfoot joint pain. Patients reported their pain levels using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pre-injection and at 3 months follow-up. The procedure was performed by an experienced foot and ankle surgeon using a linear array transducer for guidance, and a 25-gauge needle was used to inject a combination of 2 cc 1% lidocaine and 12 cc of Kenalog (40 mg/ml). Complications and pain scores were analyzed using a paired t-test and p < 0.05 was considered significant.
UNASSIGNED: We included 16 patients, 31% male and 69% female with a mean age (±SD) of 61.31 (±12.04) years. None of the patients experienced immediate complications following the intervention. The mean pre-injection VAS score was significantly reduced from 5.21 (±2.04) to a mean of 0.50 (±1.32) at 3 months follow-up (P < 0.001). Thirteen patients reported complete resolution of pain at the 3-month follow-up. No adverse events were reported throughout the duration of the study.
UNASSIGNED: This pilot study suggests P-US-guided intra-articular injections offer a safe and effective method for managing forefoot and midfoot joint pain caused by various arthritic pathologies. Further research is warranted to establish the long-term efficacy and comparative effectiveness of P-US-guided injections in larger patient cohorts as compared to non-image guided injections.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis is severe progressive and most commonly diagnosed articular disease and its incidence is increasing around the world depending on age. This pathologic condition which limits daily activity of patients can be characterized by degeneration of cartilage and inflammation. Although non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAII) agents and other analgesics are routinely used treatment options, the potential effects of intraarticular injections including hyaluronic acid (HA) have also been demonstrated by various studies. However, few studies compare the efficacy of a single high molecular weight (HMW) high dose and a triple HMW low dose. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of single high molecular weight (HMW) high dose (2 mL / 60 mg) and triple HMW low dose (2 mL /30 mg) intra-articular injection of HA in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients by evaluating function and pain parameters during 12 months.
METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective clinical study that included and involved 128 patients. Group I (n=64) patients received triple 30 mg HA injections (SEMICAL®) with one-week intervals, while Group II (n=64) patients received a single 60 mg HA injection (SEMICAL®). Lequesne Index, WOMAC and VAS scores were recorded to assess pain and function during a 12-month period.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in characteristics of patient demographics. Our finding indicate that WOMAC, VAS score, and Lequesne Index values during follow-up visits exhibited a decrease, signifying improvement in the clinical condition. Notably, scores were significantly more favorable with the 30 mg of HA injection compared to the 60 mg of HA injection.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the triple low-dose injection of HMW HA is more effective in improving WOMAC, VAS scores and Lequesne Index values than a single high-dose injection.