UNASSIGNED: This systematic review aims to comprehensively summarise and present the available evidence for the treatment of primary acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) osteoarthritis (OA).
UNASSIGNED: Five databases were searched for studies investigating the management of ACJ OA. Included were studies with participants with clinical/radiological signs of primary ACJ OA, an intervention and included a functional outcome measure.
UNASSIGNED: Forty-eight studies were included. Treatments consisted of physiotherapy (n = 1 study), medical only (n = 11) and operative management (n = 36). Operative studies included five comparative trials - physiotherapy versus surgery (n = 1) and open versus arthroscopic resection (n = 4). A total of 1902 shoulders were treated for ACJ OA, mean age (51 years), 58% male and mean follow-up (28.5 months). Treatment with injection showed a mean improvement of 50% in pain levels at follow-up (mean = 7.5 months). The commonest surgical procedure was arthroscopic excision of the distal clavicle and operative studies averaged 6 months of conservative management and a mean functional outcome of 87.8%.
UNASSIGNED: Studies varied in indication, intervention and quality but it did not provide evidence that both non-operative and operative interventions are effective. There was no significant difference between open or arthroscopic distal clavicle excision (DCE). Participants having between 0.5 and 2 cm of clavicle excised had good outcomes and those requiring concomitant shoulder procedures had similarly good outcomes.

Ultrasound visualization affords proceduralists versatile and accurate guidance for a variety of percutaneous, minimally invasive procedures in the musculoskeletal system including joint (intra-articular) injections or aspirations, intra-bursal injections, peritendinous, and perineural injections. A variety of percutaneous procedures are traditionally performed blindly, but may be more easily or more accurately performed with the real-time assistance of ultrasound guidance. Other procedures are only possible utilizing image-guidance, due to the required precision of the injection because of delicate local anatomy or depth of the injection; ultrasound is a safe, portable, and widespread modality that can be used to assist the proceduralist in localizing the needle tip in such cases, to ensure safe and accurate delivery of the medication, most frequently a solution of steroid and anesthetic. This review aims to provide a foundational approach to ultrasound-guided procedures in the musculoskeletal system, offering tips and tricks that can be employed in many different procedures including intra-articular, juxta-articular, and perineural injections for a multitude of clinical scenarios. Technical considerations regarding ultrasound transducer selection, sonographic technique, as well as common indications, contraindications, and complications of these procedures, are presented. Additionally, a variety of pharmacologic considerations for proceduralists contemplating ultrasound-guided injections are discussed.

OBJECTIVE: The immunosuppressive effects of corticosteroid (CS) injections have come under more scrutiny during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim of the study was to explore any relationship between joint/epidural CS injection and SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients 18 years or over who received at least one joint or epidural CS injection by physiatrists in a tertiary care center between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. This cohort of patients was then compared to a control group who did not receive any CS injection during this time period.
RESULTS: A total of 766 patients were identified in the CS injection group and 1546 patients in the control group. Overall, 12.27% of patients turned SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive in the CS injection group, which was similar to 11.90% in the control group (p = 0.797). But 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate showed a statistically significant higher rate among the CS injection group (3.30% in the CS injection group vs. 2.10% in the control group; p = 0.027). In multivariate regression analysis, after adjusting both groups for Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), there was statistically significant higher SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate in the CS injection group (p = 0.024). However, after adjusting both groups for age and total number of comorbidities, there was no difference between the groups in regard to SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate (p = 0.081). In the subgroup analysis of only COVID-19 vaccinated patients, there was an increased 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate among patients with severe comorbidities in the CS injection group (p = 0.036).
CONCLUSIONS: The study was not conclusive on the effect of joint or epidural CS injection on SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate, although adjusted analysis suggests higher 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate after CS injection in patients with severe comorbidities with significant disease burden when compared to controls.

Accessing a joint with a needle (arthrocentesis) to extract synovial fluid is a skill intrinsic to the rheumatologist\'s praxis. Joint aspirations are essential for diagnosing or excluding septic joints, are the gold standard for diagnosing acute crystal arthritis, and can provide valuable information about the nature of other forms of arthritis. In appropriate settings, injecting medications into joints can provide rapid, temporary, or even prolonged relief of pain and swelling and can provide a window of relief until other treatment modalities (anti-inflammatories, immunomodulators, and physical therapy) can enforce durable responses. Soft tissue aspirations (e.g., of bursae) and soft tissue injections (of bursae, tendons, trigger points, and areas of nerve compression) can provide similar relief, earning the practitioner the gratitude of the patient. Here, we provide a primary on joint and soft tissue aspiration and injection, including indications for and against procedures, preparing for procedures, and approaches to specific musculoskeletal structures.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a scoping review to identify the available evidence regarding intra-articular injections in the inferior joint space (IJS) of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ).
METHODS: An electronic search of the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases was performed using the following terms: \"Arthrocentesis\", \"injection\", \"joint injection\", \"technique\", \"Temporomandibular joint\", \"Temporomandibular joint disorder\". Full-text articles were obtained from the records after applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Only articles with full-text access were included.
RESULTS: Thirteen articles were included for analysis-one technical note, three cadavers studies, one animal study, two case reports, five randomised clinical trials and one retrospective study; studies were classified as \'patients-based studies\' and \'non-patients-based studies\'. Most \'patients-based studies\' show moderate or high risk of bias. Techniques were categorised as \'anatomical technique\' and \'image-guided technique\'. Most \'patients-based studies\' show favourable outcomes such as pain reduction, increase in maximum mouth opening, improvement in quality of life and improvement in TMJ dysfunction indexes for the treatment of arthrogenic TMDs. Comparisons between superior and IJS injections are scarce. On the other hand, \'non-patients-based\' studies show that image-guided or ultrasound-checked injection techniques achieved a higher effectiveness for needle location than anatomical (or blind) techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: The amount of available evidence is scarce, heterogeneous in design, and most \'patients-based studies\' show moderate or high risk of bias, which demands the generation of new research to obtain definitive conclusions. The tendency observed suggests that intra-articular injections for the IJS of the TMJ are able to relieve TMJ pain, increase mouth opening and improve TMJ dysfunction, and image-guided injection techniques seem to be more effective than anatomical techniques to locate the needle in the IJS.

Ultrasound (US)-guided procedures have increasingly gained their role in the daily practice of rheumatology, owing to the growing evidence supporting their utility. The utilization of US guidance in procedures may enhance their accuracy, efficacy, and safety. This article presents a comprehensive review of the current evidence and practical knowledge pertaining to US-guided procedures in rheumatology, encompassing joint aspirations, injections, and other applications such as tendon sheath injections. We provide a detailed description of the US-guided procedure process and compare the in-plane and out-of-plane view methods, along with practical techniques based on existing evidence or our own expertise. For each joint, we summarize how to perform procedures with figures to facilitate a better understanding. Additionally, we introduce other applications of US-guided procedures for tendons, enthesis, bursae, and nerves as well as emerging therapies such as US-guided fascia hydrorelease. By utilizing these US techniques, rheumatologists can achieve the ability to manage a wider range of musculoskeletal conditions.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to explore the response to intraarticular triamcinolone acetonide (TA) injection in children with non-systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and factors associated with time to arthritis flare.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of children with non-systemic JIA who received intraarticular TA injections at a tertiary care hospital in Bangkok, Thailand. Response to intraarticular TA injection was defined as absence of arthritis at 6 months after procedure. Time from joint injection to arthritis flare was recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with logarithmic rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used for outcome analyses.
RESULTS: Intraarticular TA injection was performed in 177 joints among 45 children with non-systemic JIA, most common in the knees (57 joints, 32.2%). Response to intraarticular TA injection at 6 months was observed in 118 joints (66.7%). Ninety-seven joints (54.8%) had arthritis flare following injection. The median time to arthritis flare was 12.65 months (95%CI 8.20-17.10 months). The significant risk factor associated with arthritis flare was the JIA subtypes other than persistent oligoarthritis (HR 2.62, 95%CI 1.085-6.325, p = 0.032); the significant protective factor was concomitant sulfasalazine use (HR 0.326, 95%CI 0.109-0.971, p = 0.044). Adverse effects included pigmentary changes (3, 1.7%) and skin atrophy (2, 1.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: Intraarticular TA injection in children with non-systemic JIA had favorable response in two thirds of injected joints at 6 months. The JIA subtypes other than persistent oligoarthritis was a predictor of arthritis flare following intraarticular TA injection. Key Points • Intraarticular TA injection in children with non-systemic JIA had a favorable response in two-thirds of injected joints at 6 months. • The median time from intraarticular TA injection to arthritis flare was 12.65 months. • The risk factor predicting arthritis flare was the JIA subtypes other than persistent oligoarthritis (extended oligoarthritis, polyarthritis, ERA, and undifferentiated JIA), while the concomitant use of sulfasalazine was a protective factor. • Local adverse reactions from intraarticular TA injection were less than 2% of injected joints.

UNASSIGNED: Scaphotrapezium-trapezoid (STT) joint arthritis is one of the most common forms of wrist arthritis. Conservative management often involves corticosteroid injection. Despite this, there is a scarcity of literature on palpation-guided injection techniques for the STT joint. We aimed to determine a standardized palpation-guided injection method that is easily reproducible and poses minimal risk to local anatomic structures.
UNASSIGNED: Six fresh-frozen cadaveric upper extremity specimens were tested. Access to the STT joint was attempted with dorsal, volar, and radial approaches. Fluoroscopy was used to confirm accurate placement within the joint. Needle placement was documented in relation to the surrounding soft tissue and bony landmarks were measured with a ruler, and the angle of the needle entry was recorded using a goniometer. The cadavers were carefully dissected to identify the surrounding neurovascular structures at risk of injury.
UNASSIGNED: To access the STT joint with the dorsal approach, the needle was angled at 90º and inserted one-third of the distance from the prominence of the base of the second metacarpal to Lister tubercle. No neurovascular structures were found in the immediate vicinity of the needle. For the volar approach, the needle was angled at 65º and inserted at the distal wrist crease, 1 cm ulnar to the radial border of the wrist, in line with the second metacarpal. The volar branch of the radial artery was at risk with this approach. For the radial approach, the needle was angled at 60º and inserted immediately dorsal to the extensor pollicis brevis tendon, midway between the radial styloid and the prominence of the thumb metacarpal base. The dorsal branch of the radial artery was at risk with this approach.
UNASSIGNED: In a clinical setting where fluoroscopy or ultrasound is not readily available, the dorsal approach may allow for safe and accurate placement of the injectate into the STT joint.
UNASSIGNED: Therapeutic IV.

UNASSIGNED: Multiple studies have been conducted investigating the use of sterile vs non-sterile gloves. The aim of this Clin-IQ is to determine whether there is a clinically significant difference in the rate of infections in relation to the use of sterile vs non-sterile gloves for joint injections.
UNASSIGNED: Multiple studies have shown no appreciable difference in outcomes using sterile vs clean gloves for a variety of clinical applications including joint injections.

To evaluate patients\' radiation exposure undergoing CT-guided joint injection in preparation of MR-arthrography. We developed a novel ultra-low-dose protocol utilizing tin-filtration, performed it in 60 patients and compared the radiation exposure (DLP) and success rate to conventional protocol (26 cases) and low-dose protocol (37 cases). We evaluated 123 patients\' radiation exposure undergoing CT-guided joint injection from 16 January-21 March. A total of 55 patients received CT-guided joint injections with various other examination protocols and were excluded from further investigation. In total, 56 patients received shoulder injection and 67 received hip injection with consecutive MR arthrography. The ultra-low-dose protocol was performed in 60 patients, the low-dose protocol in 37 patients and the conventional protocol in 26 patients. We compared the dose of the interventional scans for each protocol (DLP) and then evaluated success rate with MR-arthrography images as gold standard of intraarticular or extracapsular contrast injection. There were significant differences when comparing the DLP of the ultra-low-dose protocol (DLP 1.1 ± 0.39; p < 0.01) to the low dose protocol (DLP 5.3 ± 3.24; p < 0.01) as well as against the conventional protocol (DLP 22.9 ± 8.66; p < 0.01). The ultra-low-dose protocol exposed the patients to an average effective dose of 0.016 millisievert and resulted in a successful joint injection in all 60 patients. The low dose protocol as well as the conventional protocol were also successful in all patients. The presented ultra-low-dose CT-guided joint injection protocol for the preparation of MR-arthrography demonstrated to reduce patients\' radiation dose in a way that it was less than the equivalent of the natural radiation exposure in Germany over 3 days-and thereby, negligible to the patient.