ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Ultrasound evaluation of the Achilles tendon has been utilised to assess involvement at the entheses in the setting of various inflammatory, metabolic, and mechanical processes. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the differences in ultrasound findings at the Achilles enthesis between inflammatory tendinopathy (IT) versus non-inflammatory tendinopathy (NIT). METHODS: A review of all studies involving ultrasound evaluation of IT or NIT (mechanical or metabolic) affecting the Achilles enthesis was performed by searching the Embase, PubMed and Medline databases from start until October 2020. We assessed study quality and extracted summary data from each individual study. We used random-effects meta-analysis to determine the average proportion of affected anatomic sites across all studies for each abnormality, weighting the analysis based on the size of each individual study. RESULTS: Achilles enthesis thickening was more frequent in the symptomatic IT (sIT) group (37.8%) compared to the unspecified IT (25%), NIT (11.2%) and healthy control (2.7%) groups. Increased vascularity at the enthesis was more common in the NIT (23.4%) group compared to the IT (9%), sIT (8.6%) and healthy control (0.1%) groups. Erosions were more common among the IT (17.3%) and sIT (14%) groups compared to the NIT (2.2%) and healthy controls (0.3%) groups. CONCLUSIONS: While Achilles enthesis thickening, Doppler signal and calcaneal erosions discriminate IT from healthy subjects, erosions are more likely to distinguish IT from NIT than thickening or Doppler signal. Additional study is needed to quantify the diagnostic performance of ultrasound at this location given the frequency of abnormalities in NIT.
Subject(s)
Achilles Tendon , Tendinopathy , Humans , Achilles Tendon/diagnostic imaging , Ultrasonography , Ultrasonography, DopplerABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intraarticular glucocorticoid (GC) injections are associated with increased knee osteoarthritis (OA) progression compared to hyaluronic acid (HA) injections, which have been reported to delay OA progression and knee replacement. METHODS: We identified participants from 2 large cohort studies, the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) and the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study. Study visits were performed at regular intervals and included questionnaires about intraarticular GC or HA injection use in the previous 6 months and incident total knee replacement (TKR). Knee radiographs were obtained at each study visit and interpreted in a similar manner. Outcome measures were radiographic progression based on Kellgren/Lawrence (K/L) grade and joint space narrowing (JSN) for both cohorts and based on medial joint space width for OAI participants, and incident TKR. We compared preinjection and postinjection radiographs to generate rate ratios of progression comparing GC injection with HA injection. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the rate of TKR for both groups. RESULTS: We studied 791 participants (980 knees) with knee OA, of whom 629 reported GC injection use and 162 HA injection use. Rate ratios of progression were similar between those receiving GCs and those receiving HA for JSN (1.00 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.83-1.21]), K/L grade (1.03 [95% CI 0.83-1.29]), and medial joint space width (1.03 [95% CI 0.72-1.48]). Hazard of TKR was slightly lower for those receiving intraarticular GC compared to those receiving HA (hazard ratio 0.75 [95% CI 0.51-1.09]). CONCLUSION: Intraarticular GC injections are not associated with an increased risk of knee OA progression compared to HA.