Sascha Colen1, Pieter Geervliet2, Daniël Haverkamp3, Michel P. J. Van Den Bekerom4
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Pellenberg, Belgium; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Hümmling Hospital Sögel, Sögel, Germany, 2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Gemini Hospital, Den Helder, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Slotervaart Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 4 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
Correspondence Address:
Sascha Colen Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Hümmling Hospital Sögel, Mühlenstrasse 17, 49751 Sögel, Germany
![Login to access the Email id](http://www.medknow.com/images/email.gif) Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None ![Crossref citations](http://www.medknow.com/journals/images/crossref.png) | 5 |
DOI: 10.4103/0973-6042.145252
![Get Permissions](http://www.medknow.com/journals/images/gp.gif)
Background: Conservative treatments are especially in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GH-OA) important, since shoulder arthroplasty has its limitations. In this systematic review, we will evaluate the current evidence regarding the efficacy of intra-articular (IA) infiltration treatment options in patients with GH-OA.
Materials and Methods: The following databases are searched: Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane Clinical Trial Register, Embase and the WHO clinical trial register. All IA injection products used for the treatment of shoulder OA in humans are included.
Results: A total of 8 studies could be included in this review. Hyaluronic acid (HA) showed effect sizes of 2.07, 2.02 and 2.11 at 6, 12 and 26 weeks follow-up, respectively. Placebo (1.60, 1.82 and 1.68) also showed stable effect sizes at the same time points. The efficacy of corticosteroids (CS) decreased rapidly at follow-up (1.08, 0.43 and 0.19). Although statistical significant, the maximum difference in effect sizes between HA and placebo was only 0.43 with absolute values between 2.0 and 6.4 on a 100-point visual analogue score for pain.
Conclusion: IA treatment with HA has a good efficacy at follow-up compared to baseline. However, the difference in efficacy between HA and placebo never reaches the minimal clinically important difference at any of the follow-up points. We are not able to give clear recommendations for the use of IA CS injections in patients with GH-OA. In future research, we recommend focusing on sufficiently powered randomized trials to compare the efficacies of HA, CS, placebo and other IA treatment options in patients with GH-OA.
[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
|