2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.08.027
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intra-Articular Versus Periarticular Acromioclavicular Joint Injection: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
13
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…19 On the contrary, two randomized controlled trials reported that although US guidance led to a higher success rate of intra-articular injection, the clinical outcome was not better than periarticular or palpation-guided injections. 20 , 21 The above studies suggest that while US-guided AC joint injection definitely allows precise intra-articular administration of the injectate, there is still uncertainty regarding treatment outcomes compared with the palpation-guided approach.…”
Section: Ac Jointmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…19 On the contrary, two randomized controlled trials reported that although US guidance led to a higher success rate of intra-articular injection, the clinical outcome was not better than periarticular or palpation-guided injections. 20 , 21 The above studies suggest that while US-guided AC joint injection definitely allows precise intra-articular administration of the injectate, there is still uncertainty regarding treatment outcomes compared with the palpation-guided approach.…”
Section: Ac Jointmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Successful intra-articular localization may not provide a clear benefit to patients with a symptomatic acromioclavicular joint. In a multicenter, prospective, controlled trial of 101 patients with a symptomatic acromioclavicular joint who were randomized to ultrasonography-guided intra-articular or periarticular injection of 1 mL of betamethasone with local anesthetic, Sabeti-Aschraf et al 30 reported a significant clinical improvement in all the patients at 1 hour, 1 week, and 3 weeks postoperatively. At 3 weeks postoperatively, the authors reported no significant differences in visual analog scale pain scores, Constant-Murley scores, and local tenderness to palpation between the patients in the two groups; however, better pain reduction based on the crossover arm test was reported in the patients in the intra-articular injection group.…”
Section: Acromioclavicular Jointmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There were no significant differences between both groups, with the investigators proposing a poorer than expected result in the US guided group could be secondary to cartilage or meniscoid damage as a result of precise guidance of the needle into the joint. In addition, Sabeti-Aschraf et al 21 conducted a multi-centered controlled trial with 106 symptomatic arthritic ACJs to compare the efficacy of intra-articular and peri-articular joint injections. Outcomes were measured at 1 hour, 1 week and 3 weeks post-injection and recorded using the Constant-Murley score, cross-over arm test and visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess pain on palpation and pain at night.…”
Section: Therapeutic Injectionsmentioning
confidence: 99%