Does ultrasound guidance improve the outcomes of arthrocentesis and corticosteroid injection of the knee?

OBJECTIVE: The present randomized controlled trial compared arthrocentesis of the effusive knee followed by corticosteroid injection performed by the conventional anatomic landmark palpation-guided technique to the same procedure performed with ultrasound (US) needle guidance. METHODS: Sixty-four palpably effusive knees were randomized to (i) palpation-guided arthrocentesis with a conventional 20-mL syringe (22 knees), (ii) US-guided arthrocentesis with a 25-mL reciprocating procedure device (RPD) mechanical aspirating syringe (22 knees), or (iii) US-guided arthrocentesis with a 60-mL automatic aspirating syringe (20 knees). The one-needle two-syringe technique was used. Outcome measures included patient pain by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain (0-10 cm), the proportion of diagnostic samples, synovial fluid volume yield, complications, and therapeutic outcome at 2 weeks. RESULTS: Sonographic guidance resulted in 48% less procedural pan (VAS; palpation-guided: 5.8 ± 3.0 cm, US-guided: 3.0 ± 2.8 cm, p < 0.001), 183% increased aspirated synovial fluid volumes (palpation-guided: 12 ± 10 mL, US-guided: 34 ± 25 mL, p < 0.0001), and improved outcomes at 2 weeks (VAS; palpation-guided: 2.8 ± 2.4 cm, US-guided: 1.5 ± 1.9 cm, p = 0.034). Outcomes of sonographic guidance with the mechanical syringe and automatic syringe were comparable in all outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: US-guided arthrocentesis and injection of the knee are superior to anatomic landmark palpation-guided arthrocentesis, resulting in significantly less procedural pain, improved arthrocentesis success, greater synovial fluid yield, more complete joint decompression, and improved clinical outcomes.

Pressure generated by syringes: implications for hydrodissection and injection of dense connective tissue lesions.

OBJECTIVE: Hydrodissection and high-pressure injection are important for the treatment of dense connective tissue lesions including rheumatoid nodules, Dupuytren's contracture, and trigger finger. The present study determined the optimal syringes for high-pressure injection of dense connective tissue lesions. METHODS: Different sizes (1, 3, 5, 10, 20, and 60 mL) of a mechanical syringe (reciprocating procedure device) with a luer-lock fitting were studied. Twenty operators generated maximum pressure with each mechanical syringe size, and pressure was measured in pounds per square inch (psi). Subsequently, 223 dense connective tissue lesions were injected with different sizes of syringes (1, 3, or 10 mL). Outcomes included (i) successful intralesional injection and (ii) clinical response at 2 weeks. RESULTS: Smaller syringes generated significantly more injection pressure than did larger syringes: 1 mL (363 ± 197 psi), 3 mL (177 ± 96 psi), 5 mL (73 ± 40 psi), 10 mL (53 ± 29 psi), 20 mL (32 ± 18 psi), and 60 mL (19 ± 12 psi). Similarly, smaller syringes were superior to larger syringes for intralesional injection success: 10 mL: 34% (15/44) vs. 1 mL: 100% (70/70) (p < 0.001) and 3 mL: 91% (99/109) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Smaller syringes (≤ 3 mL) are superior to larger syringes (≥ 5 mL) for successful hydrodissection and high-pressure intralesional injection of dense connective tissue lesions.

A randomised controlled trial of the reciprocating syringe in arthrocentesis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of arthrocentesis with the new highly controllable, one handed reciprocating procedure syringe compared with a conventional syringe. METHODS: 100 arthrocentesis procedures were randomised between the reciprocating syringe and the conventional syringe. Outcome measures included patient pain, procedure duration, operator satisfaction, synovial fluid volume, cell counts, and complications. RESULTS: 50 arthrocentesis procedures with the conventional syringe resulted in a mean (SD) procedure time of 3.39 (1.88) minutes, a mean VAPS (patient pain) score of 5.35 (3.15), and a mean VASS (operator satisfaction) score of 4.88 (1.92); 30 of the 50 subjects experienced moderate to severe pain (VAPS score 5 or greater) during arthrocentesis. In contrast, the reciprocating syringe resulted in a reduced procedure time of 1.94 (1.14) minutes (p<0.001), a reduced VAPS (patient pain) score of 2.54 (1.60) (p<0.001), and an increased VASS (operator satisfaction) score of 8.91 (0.79) (p<0.001). Only five of the 50 of subjects experienced moderate to severe pain with the reciprocating syringe. Synovial cell counts were similar between the two syringes (p>0.05), but there was a trend toward greater volume (greater synovial fluid yield) and fewer red blood cells with the reciprocating syringe. CONCLUSIONS: Arthrocentesis with a conventional syringe results in moderate to severe pain in 60% of subjects. The reciprocating syringe prevents significant pain, reduces procedure time, and improves physician performance of arthrocentesis. The reciprocating syringe is superior to the conventional syringe in arthrocentesis.