Is Ultrasound-guided or Landmark-guided Intra-articular Lidocaine Injection More Effective for Pain Control in Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Reduction? A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Background Effective pain control during reduction of shoulder dislocation is essential for patient comfort. However, there is a lack of comprehensive research comparing the efficacy of different pain management techniques, specifically landmark-guided and ultrasound-guided intra-articular analgesic injections. Questions/purposes Among patients undergoing closed reduction of a shoulder dislocation, were there differences between an intra-articular shoulder injection placed using anatomic landmarks and an ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection in terms of (1) pain before versus after the injection and pain before injection versus after the reduction, or (2) length of stay in the emergency department and complications of the procedure? Methods Between August 2021 and March 2023, 28 patients with anterior shoulder dislocation were treated at the emergency department of a tertiary referral care center. They were randomly assigned to either the landmark-guided or ultrasound-guided intra-articular lidocaine injection group. Differences in pain levels between preinjection and postinjection, preinjection and postreduction, length of hospital stay, and complications were assessed and compared between the two groups. Patients were followed for 2 weeks. Results There were no between-group differences in terms of age, gender, baseline pain score, and any other relevant factors. There were no differences between the groups in terms of pain reduction between preinjection and postinjection (landmark-guided: ΔVAS 2.8 ± 1.1, ultrasound-guided: ΔVAS 2.9 ± 1.0, mean difference -0.14 [95% confidence interval -0.97 to 0.68]; p = 0.72) or between preinjection and postreduction (landmark-guided: ΔVAS 6.6 ± 2.1, ultrasound-guided: ΔVAS 5.8 ± 1.8, mean difference 0.79 [95% CI -0.74 to 2.31]; p = 0.30). There were no differences in length of stay in the emergency department (landmark-guided: 162 ± 38 minutes, ultrasound-guided: 184 ± 73 minutes, mean difference 22 minutes [95% CI -67 to 24]; p = 0.33), and no complications were reported in either group during the 2-week follow-up period. Conclusion The results of the landmark-guided technique were not different from those of ultrasound-guided injection in terms of lower pain levels, length of stay, and complications. These findings provide valuable guidance for orthopaedic surgeons, enabling them to make informed decisions based on their expertise and available resources. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study.