Efficacy of three different techniques in the fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular steroid injection of the hip: a randomized controlled trial.

Fluoroscopy-guided injection via the anterior (A), anterolateral (AL), or proximal anterolateral (PAL) approaches are the common hip injection techniques without comparing the efficacy of the three techniques. The prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from August 2020 to March 2022. Included patients with intra-articular hip disorders indicated an intra-articular steroid injection. Excluded significant spine pathology with radiculopathy or significant neurological deficits, previous hip surgery of the injection side, suspected tumor or infection origins, steroid or contrast media allergy, and body mass index > 35 kg/m2. The primary outcome was the injection attempt defining one attempt and multiple attempts. 90 patients were recruited and allocated to 30 per group. There were no differences between A, AL, and PAL respectively regarding the success in one attempt rate (80%, 80%, 90%; p = 0.533), VAS during local anesthetic injection (4.33 ± 1.99, 3.70 ± 2.34, 4.27 ± 2.49; p = 0.500), VAS during intra-articular injection (4.27 ± 1.87, 4.70 ± 2.37, 4.13 ± 2.37; p = 0.587), radiation doses (0.558 ± 0.313, 0.526 ± 0.485, 0.492 ± 0.275 mGy; p = 0.788), radiation time (0.043 ± 0.017, 0.039 ± 0.021, 0.041 ± 0.015 seconds; p = 0.723), and complications. The post-injection mHHS was improved in all three approaches without significant differences.

Rotational component alignment in patient-specific total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional cutting instrument.

BACKGROUND: Although many studies investigated the accuracy of customized cutting block (CCB), the data on rotational alignment are still lacking. The study aimed to assess whether CCB improved the component rotational position compared with conventional cutting instrument (CCI) using computed tomography scanning. METHODS: Eighty-six of 102 total knee arthroplasties from the previous randomized study were analyzed. The outcomes were rotational position of the femoral and tibial components, frequency of outliers and intra-class correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The mean femoral component rotation was not different between CCB versus CCI: 0.9° ± 0.8° versus 1.1° ± 1.1° (P = 0.29). Both groups had similar outlier frequencies: 2% (CCB) versus 2% (CCI) (P = 0.74). CCB had nearly 1° less mean tibial component deviation compared with CCI (P < 0.001): (1) dorsal tangent reference (DTR): 0.7° ± 0.8° versus 1.5° ± 1.0°, and (2) tibial trans-epicondylar reference (TTR): 0.5° ± 0.9° versus 1.4° ± 1.1°. Outlier frequencies were similar: (1) DTR: 0% CCB versus 5% CCI (P = 0.24), and (2) TTR: 5% in CCB versus 12% CCI (P = 0.20). Measurements based on tibial tubercle showed that CCB had ~ 1.4° less mean tibial component deviation compared with CCI: 0.3° ± 1.4° versus 1.7° ± 1.6° (P < 0.001) with a corresponding, less frequency of outliers: 0% versus 19% (P = 0.002). However, there was poor intra-observer reproducibility (0.61). CONCLUSIONS: CCB did not improve femoral component rotational alignment compared with CCI nor affect outlier frequency, but it marginally improved the accuracy of tibial rotational alignment. The tibial tubercle reference point had poor intra-observer reproducibility.