Tolerability and Efficacy of 3 Approaches to Intra-articular Corticosteroid Injections of the Knee for Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have been performed suggesting that a superolateral approach to cortisone injections for symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee is more accurate than anteromedial or anterolateral approaches, but there are little data to correlate clinical outcomes with these results. Additionally, there are minimal data to evaluate the pain of such procedures, and this consideration may impact physician preferences for a preferred approach to knee injection. PURPOSE: To determine the comparative efficacy and tolerability (patient comfort) of landmark-guided cortisone injections at 3 commonly used portals into the arthritic knee without effusion. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Adult, English-speaking patients presenting to a sports medicine clinic with knee pain attributed to radiographically proven grades I through III knee osteoarthritis were randomized to receive a cortisone injection via superolateral, anteromedial, or anterolateral approaches. Patients used a visual analog scale (VAS) to self-report comfort with the procedure. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) 3.1 VAS scores were used to establish baseline pain and dysfunction prior to the injection and at 1 and 4 weeks follow-up via mail. RESULTS: A total of 55 knees from 53 patients were randomized for injection using a superolateral approach (17 knees), an anteromedial approach (20 knees), and an anterolateral approach (18 knees). The mean VAS scores for procedural discomfort showed no significant differences between groups (superolateral, 39.1 ± 28.5; anteromedial, 32.9 ± 31.5; anterolateral, 33.1 ± 26.6; P = .78). WOMAC scores at baseline were similar between groups as well (superolateral, 1051 ± 686; anteromedial, 1450 ± 573; anterolateral, 1378 ± 673; P = .18). The WOMAC scores decreased at 1 and 4 weeks for all groups, with no significant differences in reduction between the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: Other studies have shown that the superolateral portal is the most accurate. This study did not assess accuracy, but it showed that all 3 knee injection sites studied have similar overall clinical benefit at 4-week follow-up. Procedural pain was not significantly different between groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".