Efficacy and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid Intra‐articular Injection after Arthroscopic Knee Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hyaluronic acid (HA) intra-articular injection after arthroscopic knee surgery has been widely applied but its efficacy and safety remain controversial. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the efficacy and safety of HA intra-articular injection after arthroscopic knee surgery, and to compare the efficacy of HA with different molecular weights. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Google scholar and the Cochrane library from inception to 16 September 2022 for English-written articles, in order to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the clinical efficacy and/or safety of HA intra-articular injection after arthroscopic knee surgery. Then we meta-analyzed the outcomes of patients given intra-articular HA injections postoperatively and control patients. We also evaluated the influence of HA with different molecular weights. In every calculation, sensitive analysis was performed. The visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and adverse events were selected as the primary outcome measurements, while Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner score were selected as the secondary outcome measurements. Publication bias of every outcome was evaluated using egger test. RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 951 knees were included and 12 of them were used to performed the meta-analysis. The results showed no significant difference between the HA group and control group according to VAS, whether assessed at less (P = 0.90) or more than 6 months (P = 0.55). Besides, there were no statistical differences between the HA group and control group according to subgroup analysis (Ps = 0.77, 0.91 and 0.81 in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, meniscectomy and overall groups, respectively). Compared to control group, the overall effect of WOMAC score showed no significant differences (P = 0.25), nor did in two subgroups (P = 0.37 and P = 0.22). Outcomes measured by Lysholm (P = 0.13), IKDC (P = 0.86) and Tegner (P = 0.42) scores showed no significant differences, either. The analysis of the risk of adverse events indicated no increase in HA groups (P = 0.06). We found no significant differences between high- and low-molecular-weight HA at 6 (P = 0.96) or 12 months (P = 0.93) postoperatively. Two studies failed to pass the sensitive analysis and the reasons were discussed detailly and acceptable publication bias was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Although HA injection after arthroscopic knee surgery is safe, the available evidence does not support its efficacy in pain relief and functional recovery. Therefore, the application of HA injection after arthroscopic knee surgery is not recommended.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".