Safety and Efficacy of Intra-articular Sodium Hyaluronate (Hyalgan<sup>®</sup>) in a Randomized, Double-Blind Study for Osteoarthritis of the Ankle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The potential benefit of hyaluronans in alleviating pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) in joints other than the knee is of increasing interest. This double-blind, randomized, controlled study examined the safety and efficacy of intraarticular sodium hyaluronate (Hyalgan) in the treatment of pain associated with ankle OA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients with ankle OA documented by X-ray were randomized to treatment with five weekly injections of either sodium hyaluronate 2 mL (HYL) or phosphate-buffered saline 2 mL (control) in the tibiotalar joint. The primary endpoint was pain on movement and weightbearing using the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) 3 months after injection (a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]). Additional measures included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) OA Index and patient global assessment through 6 months; the Short Form-12 (SF-12) Health Survey at 3 months and 6 months; and all reported adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The study groups differed only in age, baseline WOMAC pain, and AOS total scores; 80% of the HYL and 73% of the control patients completed the study. At Month 3, the primary endpoint of the study, the HYL group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement from baseline in AOS total score than did the control group (HYL: -17.4 +/- 5.0 mm; CONTROL: -5.1 +/- 4.0 mm; p = 0.0407). The incidence of AEs was low, with no significant differences between the groups. There were no post-injection flares. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that sodium hyaluronate may be a safe and effective option for pain associated with ankle OA, although larger studies are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".