[Minimally invasive treatments and open joint surgery for disorders of the temporomandibular joint]. / Minimaal invasieve behandelingen en opengewrichtschirurgie voor aandoeningen van het kaakgewricht.

The initial treatment of symptomatic disorders of the temporomandibular joint typically consists of a conservative approach, in which medication (painkillers and muscle relaxants), orofacial physiotherapy and splints are most important. In most cases, minimally invasive treatment options, such as arthrocentesis, arthroscopy or joint injections, are only considered when conservative methods provide insufficient symptom reduction. There is, however, an ongoing debate about the optimal treatment strategy due to an increasing body of evidence concerning the superior effectiveness in symptom reduction of minimally invasive treatment options with regard to conservative treatments. If these minimally invasive treatment options are also ineffective, open joint surgery may be considered as a last option for a select group of patients.

Current thinking in open temporomandibular joint surgery. Is this still indicated in the management of articular temporomandibular joint disorder?

Management of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) follows a stepwise approach of conservative management, minimally invasive surgery (arthrocentesis and arthroscopy), open surgery and alloplastic replacement. The majority of patients treated in primary care and managed initially in secondary care have myofascial pain and can be managed conservatively with rest, topical NSAIDs, muscle massage, and a bite orthosis. Those who fail to improve and have articular related pain with limitation of function should initially undergo arthroscopic investigation and arthrocentesis, which is effective at resolving symptoms in 80% of patients. Arthroscopy provides the best diagnostic aid should there be a failure to improve and should enable the surgeon to appropriately plan open surgery. Historically, surgical intervention was based on a 'one size fits all' philosophy with the surgeon carrying out a procedure which they are used to doing regardless of the pathology. Prior to arthroscopy this carried an '80% chance of getting 80% better' regardless of approach. Prior arthroscopy reduced success rates to 50%-60% and a better success rate is needed. Basing surgical intervention on the pathology encountered is a sensible approach to joint management, with the surgeon performing surgery on the articular surfaces or disc as indicated. Having used this approach over the last 15 years the author has achieved success rates of 80% in the longer term and this philosophy, rationale, and technique will be discussed along with analysis of more recent publications in the field.

Evidence for minimally invasive treatment-A systematic review on surgical management of disc displacement.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc displacement (DD) has been established in different forms since over a century. Ther is a consensus to perform minimal invasive interventions as first-line surgical treatment since there are no evidence on best surgical practice yet. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to perform a complex systematic review (SR) on the topic-is there evidence for surgical treatment of TMJ DD? METHODS: The PICO was defined as DD patients (population), treated with different surgical interventions including arthrocentesis (intervention), compared with other or no treatment (control) regarding the outcome variables mandibular function, mouth opening capacity, TMJ pain, etcetera (outcome). For identification of prospective controlled trials and SRs, a search strategy was developed for application in three databases. RESULTS: The search yielded 4931 studies of which 56 fulfilled the stipulated PICO. Studies with low or moderate risk of bias were possible to include in meta-analyses. There were evidence suggesting arthrocentesis being more effective compared to conservative management (maximum interincisal opening (MIO): p < .0001, I2 = 22%; TMJ pain: p = .0003, I2 = 84%) and arthrocentesis being slightly more effective than arthrocentesis with an adjunctive hyaluronic acid injection (MIO: p = .04, I2 = 0%; TMJ pain: p = .28, I2 = 0%). Other treatment comparisons showed nonsignificant differences. The performed meta-analyses only included 2-4 studies each, which might indicate a low grade of evidence. CONCLUSION: Although arthrocentesis performed better than conservative management the findings should be interpreted cautiously, and non-invasive management considered as primary measure. Still, several knowledge gaps concerning surgical methods of choice remains.

The benefits of performing temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis with catheters and a vacuum pump: A randomized control trial.

This study aims to compare the effectiveness of two different techniques of double puncture arthrocentesis with and without the addition of catheters and a vacuum pump for management of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc displacement without reduction (DDWOR). A total of 48 patients with DDWOR were randomly and blindly allocated into two treatment groups (N = 24): Group 1, TMJ arthrocentesis with the addition of catheters and a vacuum pump to the second needle; Group 2, TMJ arthrocentesis without any addition device. The following variables were registered and compared between groups: patient's pain perception (visual analogue scale [VAS; 0-10]); maximal interincisal distance [MID; mm]; joint effusion (JE, presence or absence); facial edema (FE; presence or absence); and the operation duration (OP; minutes). Patients in Group 1 presented with significantly lower VAS scores (p < 0.001) and presence of FE (p = 0.03) in the post-operative period, also an increase in MID values (p = 0.026), and a reduction in JE (p = 0.022) after 3 months. Besides that, in this group, the procedure was performed significantly faster (p < 0.001). Performing arthrocentesis with the addition of a vacuum pump makes the procedure faster and yields better results in terms of pain, facial swelling, mouth opening and joint effusion.

Arthroscopy versus arthrocentesis and versus conservative treatments for temporomandibular joint disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of arthroscopy compared to arthrocentesis and to conservative treatments for temporomandibular joint disorders. Thirteen controlled studies on various patient outcomes were included after a systematic search in seven electronic databases. Meta-analyses were conducted separately for arthroscopic surgery (AS) and arthroscopic lysis and lavage (ALL), and short-term (<6 months), intermediate-term (6 months to 5 years), and long-term (≥5 years) follow-up periods were considered. No significant differences in pain reduction and complication rates were found between AS or ALL and arthrocentesis. Regarding improvement in maximum mouth opening (MMO), both AS at intermediate-term and ALL at short-term follow-up were equally efficient when compared to arthrocentesis. However, at intermediate-term follow-up, ALL was superior to arthrocentesis for MMO improvement (mean difference 4.9 mm, 95% confidence interval 2.7-7.1 mm). Trial sequential analysis supported the conclusion of the meta-analysis for MMO improvement for ALL versus arthrocentesis studies at intermediate-term follow-up, but not for the other meta-analyses. Insufficient evidence exists to draw conclusions regarding other patient outcomes or about comparisons between arthroscopy and conservative treatments. Due to the low quality of the primary studies, further research is warranted before final conclusions can be drawn regarding the management of temporomandibular joint disorders.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Guided Arthrocentesis of a Pediatric Septic Ankle.

ABSTRACT: Septic arthritis is one potential cause of pediatric joint effusion and pain that may lead to significant morbidity. We present a case where point-of-care ultrasound was used to identify and aspirate a joint effusion in a pediatric patient with septic arthritis of the ankle, facilitating timely diagnosis and care. We review the technique for arthrocentesis of the ankle and literature on point-of-care ultrasound in the diagnosis of pediatric septic arthritis.

Effectiveness of double-puncture temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis with viscosupplementation in different categories of severity - a prospective study.

This 3-year prospective study evaluated the efficacy of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis with viscosupplementation in different severity stages based on the Dimitroulis classification (categories 2-4 were included). TMJ arthrocentesis was performed under local anaesthesia, and the protocol consisted of a double-puncture technique with lavage of ≥150 cc Ringer Lactate plus viscosupplementation. Incobotulinum toxin A was administered 10-15 days preoperatively in patients with concomitant masticatory myalgia. The primary outcome was TMJ pain, assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-10), and the secondary outcomes were the maximum mouth opening (MMO, mm) and myalgia degree (0-3). All outcomes were assessed on the intervention day (T0) and after the procedure (T1) (minimum 1 month and then 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and every year since). A total of 108 patients were enrolled (mean age of 43.1 ± 18.9 years); 86 (80%) were women and 22 (20%) were men. Preoperative pain was 4.02 ± 3.12 (mean ± SD), MMO was 38.10 ± 9.56 (mean ± SD) and myalgia degree was 1.80 ± 1.18 (mean ± SD). After an average of 215.4 days (31-1253 days), a statistically significant improvement of pain (P < 0.0001), MMO (P = 0.005) and myalgia degree (P < 0.0001) was observed. The overall successful outcome of TMJ arthrocentesis with viscosupplementation was 76%. The authors observed increased arthrocentesis effectiveness and success rate with viscosupplementation in Dimitroulis category 2 (88.6%) compared to 3-4 (71.4%). An association was found between arthrocentesis with viscosupplementation failure and painful myalgia (ρ = 0.477; P < 0.0001). Thirteen patients (12%) underwent a second TMJ intervention after finalising the present trial. With a low complication rate, TMJ arthrocentesis with viscosupplementation led to an overall benefit for all the included patients. This study reinforces the important role of minimally invasive TMJ arthrocentesis as a first treatment option, with better results in the early stages compared to more severe stages.

Use of equine cadaver limb models to enhance veterinary student self-efficacy during arthrocentesis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if equine cadavers modified with joint distension would yield higher fluid volumes, require fewer needle redirects, and improve student self-efficacy. SAMPLE: 19 third-year veterinary students. METHODS: Voluntary participation was sought during 4 sessions of an equine arthrocentesis and diagnostic analgesia laboratory. Half of the sessions were provided with unmodified cadavers and half were provided with cadavers modified with joint distention. Prior to and after the laboratory, participating students completed surveys regarding their self-efficacy with arthrocentesis of the metacarpophalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints. During the study, the number of needle redirects and the volume of fluid obtained was recorded. RESULTS: Increased fluid volumes were obtained from the modified metacarpophalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints. No difference was identified in number of needle redirects between cadaver types for either joint. Self-efficacy scores increased at the end of the laboratory for arthrocentesis of the metacarpophalangeal joint in both modified and unmodified groups. Self-efficacy scores increased at the end of the laboratory for arthrocentesis of the distal interphalangeal joint for the modified but not unmodified groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Modified equine cadavers provided a higher fluid yield following arthrocentesis compared to unmodified cadavers, but despite this, multiple attempts were required for proper needle placement. Performing equine arthrocentesis improved student self-efficacy with the task. Given our results, the model used for introduction to performing equine arthrocentesis may be less important than practice with the skill. In order to improve proficiency and self-efficacy, equine arthrocentesis should be provided multiple times throughout the veterinary curriculum.

Is Single Puncture Superior to Double Puncture Arthrocentesis in Patients With Wilkes III Internal Derangement?

BACKGROUND: Arthrocentesis is a minimally invasive procedure with reported efficacy when used for lysis and lavage of the joint for symptomatic internal derangement, irrespective of the technique utilized. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine if the single puncture arthrocentesis (SPA) is superior to double puncture arthrocentesis (DPA) with respect to pain reduction and improved maximal mouth opening (MMO) for subjects with acute disc displacement without reduction. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A single-blinded randomized prospective clinical trial was conducted at the tertiary referral center for temporomandibular joint disorders. All subjects were diagnosed with acute onset disc displacement without reduction based on history and magnetic resonance imaging findings. Subjects were randomized to SPA or DPA. PREDICTOR VARIABLE(S): The primary predictor variable was arthrocentesis technique (SPA vs DPA). MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE(S): The primary outcome variables were pain and MMO, measured at 4 weeks. The duration for the procedure was recorded at the time of the surgery. COVARIATES: Age, sex, and the side affected were recorded. ANALYSES: Data were analyzed using analysis of variance to compare the primary outcome variables. Levene's, post hoc, and Bonferroni-Holm tests were used for intergroup comparisons with a P value of <0.05 being significant. RESULTS: Forty subjects completed the study. The mean age for the SPA and DPA groups was 28.3 (±3.9) and 29.1 (±4.1), respectively (P = .52). The sex distribution was 60 and 55% female in the SPA and DPA groups, respectively. The mean pain reduction in the SPA and DPA groups was from 8.30 (±0.86) to 0.90 (±0.78) and from 8.00 (±0.79) to 0.95 (±0.82), respectively (P < .0001). There was no difference in pain reduction between the groups (P = .05). The mean increase in MMO was 34.6 (±2.34) and 33.4 (±2.35) in the SPA and DPA groups, respectively (P < .0001). The difference between the groups was not significant (P = .12). The procedural time in the SPA and DPA groups was 14.15 ± 1.72 and 17.55 ± 1.66, respectively (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: SPA and DPA arthrocentesis appear to be equally efficacious for pain reduction and increasing MMO. SPA can be completed in less time than DPA and should be considered as a viable alternative to the conventional DPA technique.

Manejo das disfunções temporomandibulares. Parte II: tratamento cirúrgico / Management of temporomandibular joint disorders. Part II: surgical treatment

Objetivo: Apresentar as modalidades de tratamentos cirúrgicas mais usadas disponíveis no arsenal terapêutico das desordens temporomandibulares (DTMs). Revisão da literatura: As DTMs são muito frequentes e são responsáveis ​​por dor e desconforto em um número importante de pacientes. A avaliação e o diagnóstico são as chaves para determinar um plano de manejo adequado dessas doenças. Embora o tratamento conservador seja bem-sucedido na maioria dos pacientes, os tratamentos cirúrgicos podem ser a única opção para aqueles que não respondem ao tratamento conservador ou para casos com indicação cirúrgica inicial como, por exemplo, algumas neoplasias articulares. Dentre as alternativas cirúrgicas, podemos citar a artrocentese, artroscopia, reposicionamento do disco articular por cirurgia aberta, discectomia e tratamentos cirúrgicos para hipermobilidade e anquilose da articulação temporomandibular. Considerações finais: A seleção adequada dos casos é requisito obrigatório para uma intervenção cirúrgica bem-sucedida, a fim de alcançar o resultado desejado do tratamento, como alívio dos sintomas e melhora da função.

Aim: To present the most commonly used surgical treatment modalities available in the therapeutic arsenal for temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Literature review: TMD is very common and is responsible for pain and dysfunction in a significant number of patients. Assessment and diagnosis are key to determining a management plan for these diseases. Although conservative treatment is successful in most patients, surgical treatments may be the only option for those who do not respond to conservative treatment or for some cases with an initial surgical indication, such as some joint neoplasms. Surgical alternatives include arthrocentesis, arthroscopy, repositioning of the articular disc by open surgery, discectomy and surgical treatments for temporomandibular joint hypermobility and ankylosis. Conclusions: Proper case selection is the mandatory requirement for successful surgical intervention in order to achieve the desired treatment outcome, such as symptom relief and improved function.

Measuring success: A comparison of ultrasound and landmark guidance for knee arthrocentesis in a cadaver model.

OBJECTIVE: Knee arthrocentesis can be performed by landmark (LM) or ultrasound (US) guidance. The goal of performing knee arthrocentesis is to obtain synovial fluid, however, it is also important to consider the number of attempts required and accidental bone contacts that occur. This study evaluates procedural success without bone contact in knee arthrocentesis and compares both LM and US guided techniques in a cadaver model. METHODS: This was a randomized crossover study comparing US vs LM guidance for arthrocentesis in a single academic center. Volunteers were randomized to perform both LM and US guided knee arthrocentesis on cadavers. The primary outcome was procedural success, defined as first attempt aspiration of synovial fluid without bone contact. Secondary outcomes included number of attempts, number of bone contacts, time to aspiration, and confidence. RESULTS: Sixty-one participants completed the study with a total of 122 procedures performed. Procedural success without bone contact was greater in the US group (84% vs 64% p = 0.02). Time to aspiration was longer for US (38.75 s vs 25.54 s p = 0.004). Participants were more confident with US compared to LM both before the procedure on a Visual Analog Scale from 1 to 100 (29 vs 21 p = 0.03) as well as after the procedure (83 vs 69 p = 0.0001). Participants had a greater median increase in confidence with US following training (44 vs 26 p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Study participants had greater procedural success without bone contact when US guidance was used. The increase in confidence following training was greater for US guidance than the LM method. Use of US guidance may offer a benefit by allowing for better needle control and avoidance of sensitive structures for clinicians performing knee arthrocentesis.

Platelet-rich plasma injections for the treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to investigate and examine whether intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) after arthrocentesis are beneficial for the treatment of temporomandibular disorders, when compared to other treatments, such as injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) or saline after arthrocentesis. METHODS: An electronic search on PubMed was performed using combinations of the terms 'temporomandibular' and 'platelet rich plasma', to identify studies reported in English and published up until 2017. The initial screening identified 222 records, of which only seven fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Of these studies, three compared injection of PRP after arthrocentesis with the injection of HA after arthrocentesis, while two compared injection of PRP after arthrocentesis with Ringer's lactate after arthrocentesis and one compared injection of PRP after arthrocentesis to sodium chloride. RESULTS: Five of the studies found that PRP injections have led to significant improvements in mandibular range of motion and pain intensity up to 12 months after treatment, while the remaining two studies found similar results for the different treatments. CONCLUSION: However, a standardized protocol for PRP preparation and application needs to be established.

Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: a single-center experience and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to report our experience and to review the literature of arthrocentesis focusing on protocols and results. METHODS: Arthrocentesis with supplemental hyaluronic acid was performed in patients with TMDs between January 2017 and December 2020 at the Division of Maxillofacial Surgery. The maximum interincisal opening (MIO) and pain score were recorded preoperatively (T0), 2 months postoperatively (T1), and 6 months postoperatively (T2). A literature search was performed to analyze the same parameters in patients with TMDs. Patient demographic, characteristics and treatment protocols used were also recorded. RESULTS: This retrospective analysis enrolled 45 patients. Twenty-two patients (20 females, 2 males) with mean age of 37.13 years with internal derangement were included in study group A. Study group B included 23 patients with degenerative joint disease (19 females and 4 males) with mean age of 55.73 years. The outcomes trend of MIO and pain during the follow-up period showed a gradual improvement. Fifty articles meeting the proposed scientific criteria were selected for the literature revision. A range of clinical and procedural variables were analyzed by grouping the studies into two broad categories based on the diagnosis of TMD. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our experience and on the basis of the most accredited scientific studies in the literature, intra-articular injections of HA are beneficial for the improvement of the pain and/or functional symptoms of TMDs.

Does intra-articular injection of tenoxicam after arthrocentesis heal outcomes of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis? A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ-OA) is a degenerative disease and manifests itself with pain and limitation of movement in the jaws. Arthrocentesis alone or in combination with intraarticular injections is one of the most commonly used treatment methods in these patients. The aim of the study is to examine the effectiveness of arthrocentesis plus tenoxicam injection and to compare it with arthrocentesis alone in patients with TMJ-OA. METHODS: Thirty patients with TMJ-OA who were treated randomly with either arthrocentesis plus tenoxicam injection (TX group) or arthrocentesis alone (control group) were examined. Maximum mouth opening (MMO), visual analog scale (VAS) pain values, and joint sounds were the outcome variables, which were evaluated at pre-treatment and at 1, 4, 12, and 24 weeks after treatment. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The gender distribution and mean age were not significantly different between the two groups. Pain values (p < 0.001), MMO (p < 0.001), and joint sounds (p < 0.001) improved significantly in both groups. However, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of outcome variables [pain (p = 0.085), MMO (p = 0.174), joint sounds (p = 0.131)]. CONCLUSIONS: Arthrocentesis plus tenoxicam injection showed no better outcomes in terms of MMO, pain, and joint sounds compared with arthrocentesis alone in patients with TMJ-OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Injection of Tenoxicam Versus Arthrocentesis Alone in the Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Osteoarthritis, NCT05497570. Registered 11 May 2022. Retrospectively registered, https://register. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000CD7A&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0006FC4&ts=6&cx=f3anuq.

Does the Use of Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin After Arthrocentesis for Disc Displacement Without Reduction Improve Clinical Outcomes?

PURPOSE: Many studies have reported the role of arthrocentesis to alleviate symptoms in patients with disc displacement without reduction (DDWoR). Nevertheless, the benefit of injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to answer the following question: Among patients with DDWoR, do those treated with intra-articular injection of i-PRF after arthrocentesis, when compared to those treated with arthrocentesis only, have better clinical outcomes in terms of pain reduction and improvement of jaw movement? MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-blind randomized, controlled study included patients with diagnosed DDWoR, in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the School of Dentistry, Ege University, who had localized joint pain and limited range of motion. Patients were treated either with arthrocentesis (AC group) or arthrocentesis in combination with intra-articular i-PRF injection (AC + i-PRF group). The predictor variable was treatment (ie, arthrocentesis with or without i-PRF). The primary outcome variable was pain (visual analog scale). The secondary outcome variables were maximum mouth opening, lateral and protrusive movements. Outcome variables were recorded at pretreatment and at the postoperative 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 12th months. Statistical analysis was performed using the Brunner-Langer model, with a significance level P < .05. RESULTS: This study comprised 76 patients (34 females/4 males, mean age 47.2 ± 9.1 for the AC + i-PRF group; 35 females/3 males, mean age 46.8 ± 10.2 for the AC group). The treatment success rate was 73.7% for the AC group and 100% for the AC + i-PRF group (P = .012). Pain levels in the AC + i-PRF group were found to decrease more than the AC group over 12 months postoperatively (palpation: -6.9 ± 1.2 vs -5.3 ± 1.3; chewing: -6.9 ± 1.5 vs -5.1 ± 1.7; jaw movements: -6.9 ± 1.1 vs -5.1 ± 1.4). This difference was statistically significant (P < .001). The degree of jaw movement in the AC + i-PRF group was found to increase more than the AC group over 12 months postoperatively (maximum mouth opening: 8.0 ± 2.1 vs 4.9 ± 2.0; contralateral: 1.8 ± 0.8 vs 0.2 ± 1.0; ipsilateral: 2.9 ± 1.3 vs 0.8 ± 1.5; protrusive: 2.6 ± 1.1 vs 0.8 ± 1.3). This difference was statistically significant (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Intra-articular injection of i-PRF after arthrocentesis produced greater improvements in pain reduction and jaw movement when compared to arthrocentesis only. These results indicate that i-PRF used in combination with arthrocentesis is an effective adjunctive treatment.

The Efficacy of Ozonized Water Versus Ringer Lactate Arthrocentesis for the Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Internal Derangement.

BACKGROUND: Temporomandibular disorders are musculoskeletal conditions characterized by facial pain and impaired temporomandibular joint function, limited mouth opening, joint and muscular pain, and noises during mandibular movements are some of the most common symptoms. The most frequent cause of temporomandibular joint dysfunction is internal derangement (ID), which refers to an alteration in the normal pathways of motion of the joint that largely involves the function of the articular disc, therefore, these alterations have been also referred to as disc derangement. Arthrocentesis is a minimally invasive technique, less expensive than surgical treatment. Adhesions are released after arthrocentesis of the upper joint space under sufficient hydraulic pressure. Intra-articular ozone gas injection is used as conservative treatment modalities for ID of the temporomandibular as it possesses anti-inflammatory, analgesic effects, enhancement the host defense mechanism and accelerates the healing process of the damaged cells. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of ozonized water against lactated ringer solution in the arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients were used in this study, suffered from ID of the temporomandibular joint treated by arthrocentesis under hydraulic pressure and were allocated into 2 groups; the study group (A), which included 30 patients, managed by arthrocentesis utilizing ozonized water and the control group (B) with 30 patients also treated by the same procedure using ringer lactate solution. Visual analog scale pain scores, temporomandibular joint sounds, and maximal mouth opening were assessed preoperatively and at different intervals postoperatively. RESULTS: The age in this study ranged from 14 to 66 years. The mean age of group A was 29.93 years with an SD of ±11.79. For group B, the mean age was 27.56 years and the SD was ±10.80, the prominent percentage in both groups was < 30 years. Regarding sex, 45 patients were females, whereas the males were 15 with a ratio of 3:1. Group A registered the highest reduction in the visual analog scale at all postoperative intervals. With respect to the mouth opening, there was no significant difference in maximal mouth opening between the 2 groups after 1 week and 12 weeks in comparison with the preoperative measurements. The temporomandibular joint sounds improved in all patients in group A after 12 weeks, whereas in group B the sounds dropped to 33.3%. CONCLUSION: The data from the present study suggested more favorable treatment outcomes for ozonized water lavage and it is a promising new treatment modality for the relief of symptoms associated with the ID of the temporomandibular joint.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing arthrocentesis with conservative management for painful temporomandibular joint disorder.

The aim of this study was to determine whether arthrocentesis is superior to conservative treatment in the management of painful temporomandibular joint disorders with restricted opening. A systematic review was undertaken of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing arthrocentesis to conservative management, identified in the MEDLINE and PubMed databases. Inclusion criteria included a 6-month follow-up, with clinical assessment of the patients and painful restricted mouth opening. Data extracted included pain measured on a visual analogue scale and maximum mouth opening measured in millimetres. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 for RCTs, and a meta-analysis with the random-effects model was undertaken. Of 879 records retrieved, seven met the inclusion criteria; these RCTs reported the results at 6 months for 448 patients. One study had a low risk of bias, four studies had an uncertain risk, and two had a high risk of bias. In the meta-analysis, arthrocentesis was statistically superior to conservative management at 6 months for an increase in maximum mouth opening (1.12 mm, 95% confidence interval 0.45-1.78 mm; P = 0.001; I2 = 87%) and borderline superior for pain reduction (-1.09 cm, 95% confidence interval -2.19 to 0.01 cm; P = 0.05; I2 = 100%). However, these differences are unlikely to be clinically relevant.

The preferred technique for knee synovium biopsy and synovial fluid arthrocentesis.

For knee osteoarthritis and related conditions, analysis of biomarkers hold promise to improve early diagnosis and/or offer patient-specific treatment. To compare biomarker analyses, reliable, high-quality biopsies are needed. The aim of this work is to summarize the literature on the current best practices of biopsy of the synovium and synovial fluid arthrocentesis. Therefore, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles that applied, demonstrated, or evaluated synovial biopsies or arthrocentesis. Expert recommendations and applications were summarized, and evidence for superiority of techniques was evaluated. Thirty-one studies were identified for inclusion. For arthrocentesis, the superolateral approach in a supine position, with a 0°-30° knee flexion was generally recommended. 18-gage needles, mechanical compression and ultrasound-guidance were found to give superior results. For blind and image-guided synovial biopsy techniques, superolateral and infrapatellar approaches were recommended. Single-handed tools were preconized, including Parker-Pearson needles and forceps. Sample quantity ranged approximately from 2 to 20. Suggestions were compiled for arthrocentesis regarding approach portal and patient position. Further evidence regarding needle size, ultrasound-guidance and mechanical compression were found. More comparative studies are needed before evidence-based protocols can be developed.

Ultrasound-guided temporomandibular joint aspiration: technique and results in six cases of suspected septic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe an ultrasound (US)-guided temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis technique and determine its microbial yield in the workup of suspected TMJ septic arthritis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of US-guided TMJ arthrocentesis for the work-up of septic arthritis performed by radiologists at two institutions was performed. Patient demographics, risk factors for septic arthritis, blood culture results, and pre-procedural imaging findings were recorded. Procedural data included fluid aspirate quantity, needle gauge and length, and any immediate complications. Post-procedural data included synovial fluid analysis including culture, final diagnosis of TMJ disease, type of treatment, and any delayed complications from arthrocentesis. RESULTS: A total of six US-guided TMJ arthrocenteses were identified, all of which yielded at least 1 mL of synovial fluid. Five patients were subsequently diagnosed with septic arthritis, and one patient was diagnosed with GVHD arthritis. The synovial fluid in four out of five patients with a final diagnosis of septic arthritis produced positive cultures. There were no immediate or delayed complications from arthrocentesis. CONCLUSION: Basic US-guided procedural skills are transferrable to TMJ arthrocentesis, which is a low-risk procedure with a high microbial yield in our small series of patients with septic arthritis.

Ultrasound-guided vs conventional arthrocentesis for management of temporomandibular joint disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes between ultrasound (US)-guided arthrocentesis and conventional arthrocentesis for the management of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, BioMed Central, CENTRAL, and Google scholar databases were searched up to April 1 2020 for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing US-guided and conventional arthrocentesis. RESULTS: Four RCTs were included. Pooled analysis did not demonstrate any statistically significant difference in pain or maximal mouth opening (MMO) scores after 1 week and 1 month of follow-up between US-guided and conventional arthrocentesis. Studies also reported data on intra-operative needle relocations and operating time but with conflicting results. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the use of US during arthrocentesis may not improve postoperative pain and MMO in the short term. Data on intra-operative outcomes are scarce and conflicting for any definitive conclusions. Further high-quality adequately powered RCTs are required to strengthen current evidence.